you, very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] darrell, last name is jones. i am the director of manpower, personnel, and services. >> attorney general eric holder addresses criticism of the fast and furious program. president obama comments on the senate's rejection of his nominee to head the consumer financial protection bureau. and the pentagon holds a news briefing -- about dover air force base. >> have no health care, the most expensive single element, have no environmental control, no pollution controls, and no

retirement, and you don't care about anything but making money, there'll be a giant sucking sound. >> prospero during the 1992 presidential debate. he made two attempts for the presidency, the first time getting over 90 million votes, more popular votes than any third-party candidate in american history. although he lost, he has had a lasting influence on american politics. he is the final candidate in the contenders, live friday at 8:00 p.m. eastern. >> on capitol hill today, attorney general eric holder addressed criticism of the fast and furious program, and atf's thing which allowed hundreds of guns to enter mexico and come into possession of drug cartels. the attorney general was questioned about the program at

a hearing of the house judiciary committee. here is part of the hearing. it is three hours. >> the judiciary committee will come to order. i am going to recognize myself for an opening statement, then the ranking manner -- the ranking member and the gentleman from california, then the gentleman from virginia, mr. scott. we will proceed to hearing from the attorney general. attorney general eric holder appear before the house judiciary committee last may, and we appreciate his willingness to appear today to address many issues, including questions about his previous testimony. while i am pleased to welcome back attorney general holder, i am disappointed in the department's repeated refusal to cooperate with this committee's

oversight request. inconsistent statements from department officials about who knew what and when have only raised more concerns. i am also disappointed in how the department has responded to my oversight request regarding justice cadence involvement in health care legislation and related litigation wallace she served as united states solicitor general. despite claims from obama administration officials that the then solicitor general kaydin was off from discussions regarding the health care law, recently released e-mails indicate there may be more to the story. on march 21, 2010, an e-mail from the deputy solicitor general boarded to solicitor

general taking contain information about a meeting at the white house on the health care law and asked, "i think you should go -- no, i will, regardless, but this is litigation of singular importance. solicitor general kaydin responded back asking for his phone number. we also know that she personally supported the legislation's passage. in a march 21 exchange discussing the health care legislation, ms. kaydin explains "i hear that have the votes come up larry, simply amazing." these e-mails revealed inconsistencies with the administration's claims that was solicitor general kaydikagn walled off. to clear up confusion, i wrote to get additional documents and conduct staff interviews. it took nearly four months before the department sent a one page response that denied my request. the department did not assert

any legal privilege over the requested information, but simply refused to comply with the request. that is not a sufficient answer. health care legislation was passed by the senate on december 24, 2009. on january 8, 2010, ms. kagan told the deputy solicitor general that she definitely like the office of the solicitor general to be involved in preparations to defend against challenges to the pending health care proposals. ms. kagan found out she was being considered for a potential supreme court vacancy on march 5, 2010. so the issue is how involved was chic in healthcare discussions between january 8 and march 5? just as president nixon had an 18.5 minute gap, does ms. kagan

have a two-month gap? the office of attorney general -- it was the duty of the then solicitor general kagan to participate in meetings and discussions regarding legal defense strategy for the president's health-care proposal. it would have been a surprising departure from her responsibilities for solicitor general taken not to advise the administration on health care bill. the law clearly states that justices must recused themselves if they participated as counsel, adviser, or material witness concerning the proceedings or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of a particular case while they worked in a government capacity. the public has a right to know the extent of justice pagans involvement with the legislation -- justicekagan's involvement with the legislation.

the nfl would not allow it and -- issue as part of the team that put the health care mandate into play, she should not officiate when it comes before the supreme court. if the department has nothing to hide, why not provide congress with the requested information? the continued refusal to cooperate with legitimate oversight inquiries only heightens concerns that she may, in fact, have a conflict of interest. obama has promised an open and transparent government. unfortunately, we often see a closed and secretive justice department. i know all members of the committee look forward to asking questions on these and other issues. i will now recognize the gentleman from michigan, mr. conyers. >> thank you, and chairman smith. a hearty welcome not only to the

attorney general of the united states, eric holder, but as well -- this is the most numerous number of police chiefs and department of justice officials that i have seen in this room at one time in quite awhile. all of them, but particularly to the detroit police chief who is here, i sent a special welcome. chairman smith, would it be appropriate that our colleague, a former member of the committee, adam schiff of california, said on the day is with us? >> we normally don't do that, but in this -- we can have him sit up on the dais with us. we certainly welcome his

presence of here. >> i thank you for that courtesy. adam, come on up. >> if he can find room. >> there are two parts to my comments this morning, members of the committee. the first deals with what are the problems underlying the reason for the hearing, and the second, more specifically, deals with a career and contributions of the attorney general of the united states. i have the privilege of putting the solutions i would like you

to consider out in my opening statement. we can go over the details ad nauseum if you would like, but i would refer everyone to the november rate, 2011 hearings in the united states senate committee on the judiciary, in which chairman pat leahy, with more than a dozen senators on that committee have plowed through this, and have been going over and over it for the last couple of days, but i think you want to have that as a basis for anybody that is particularly interested. the problem of gun trafficking in the southwest is a serious problem, and i recommend to my

judiciary committee colleagues, with whom this whole subject matter is the jurisdiction of this committee, that we commit to maintaining the new rule requiring the reporting of multiple sales of semi-automatic weapons and shotguns, rifles, by individuals in the southwest border states. there have been a number of programs that have dealt with this subject, but i think that is probably number one on my recommended list. secondly, we must see to it that we confirm a director of alcohol, tobacco, and firearms. it has been operating under

acting directors for the last 5.5 years. the senate has failed to act on the nominations, not only of the current president, but of president bush as well. so if we are going to criticize atf, i think we must work to revitalize it, not to tear it down, because it is too important a source of protection and a way of ending violence in this important part of our country. last, we must enact some legislation to prohibit gun trafficking.

the transfer of multiple guns, when we know they will be transferred to those who are legally prohibited from carrying a gun, or people who intend to use guns illegally, must be further prohibited by legislative and congressional action. i commend our new york colleague, carolyn maloney, who has sponsored a very good idea in this regard. so i conclude, mr. chairman and members, by telling you i have never encountered an attorney general more dedicated and more professionally effective than the current occupant of that chair, eric holder, who has

achieved impressive results across the full range of his mission, especially what has happened in the civil rights division, and i think the questions today here are appropriate. i think the hearing is fair. i think we have a chairman that will make sure we proceed in a manner that will make us all proud that we attended and participated in this hearing today. but we also know that letting guns rolm around this country is something that all of us have a great responsibility to make sure that that is diminished or

comes to an end as soon as possible. thank you, mr. chairman, for this opportunity. >> thank you, mr. conyers, for those comments. the gentleman from california, chairman of the oversight and government reform committee is recognized for an opening statement. >> i would first like to ask unanimous consent that the following document be placed in the record. i thank you for holding this hearing. we are beginning the process of getting to the bottom of fast and furious. i take exception to my colleague on the other side of the aisle, mr. conyers. what is too important is the second amendment, the idea that

regulations without any approval of congress have been added to create databases in the southwestern states, including california, arizona, new mexico, clearly shows that in fact, this administration is more interested in building databases, more interested in talking about gun control that actually controlling the drugs and guns that they had control over. whether it is money-laundering or in fact is the flow of guns, knowingly. just one individual was allowed to buy under the auspices of the justice department, 700 weapons, knowing exactly who they were going to before they ever went. our discovery has shown that this was not an accident, and that this project was failed and plot from the beginning. it is not just atf, not just the

eea. in fact, it includes the departure of homeland security in a task gordon of did not respect the safeguards of the american people. brian terry is dead today, in my opinion, because of this belt program. but even today, we will not hear the justice taking responsibility. they will instead talk about the to guns that were recovered. ballistics are inconclusive, and at this justice department is not looking for a third weapon. they are not looking for who killed ryan terry, while they try to have plausible deniability that fast and furious may not have been responsible. that is reprehensible to the family suffering under brian terris needless murder. fast and furious began in november 2009. it was a new operation, building on a failed operation under the previous administration. the difference of the previous

administration was, there was coordination with the mexican government. they made a real effort under wide receiver to pass off a small amount of weapons and track them. this program is just the opposite. even knowing the drug cartels were going to receive them, they simply allow them to go to the stash house. mr. attorney general, today i hope you will not point fingers and say that somehow this is not organic. there is nothing more organic than a law enforcement officer being gunned down because of that failure to protect within the department of justice. there is nothing more organic than congress's responsibility and following up on congress being lied to. my committee just next door was systematically lied to by your own representatives. there is a high likelihood the individual was deliberately duped by people who still work for you today. still work for you today. the president has said he has

full confidence in this attorney general. i have no confidence in a president who has full confidence in an attorney general who has in fact not terminated or dealt with the individuals, including key lieutenants who, from the very beginning, had some knowledge, and long before a bryant terry was gunned down, knew enough to stop this program. there has been an attempt to find scapegoats. many of the people who have been pointed to do share in the blame, but mr. attorney general, the blame must go to your desk, and you must, today, take real responsibility. why haven't you terminated the many people involved? why is it that we are still hearing about inconsistencies that don't even take the correct responsibility for border patrol agent brian terry's death. those are the things we want to hear today. mr. attorney general, i respect the fact that you said in the

senate that you gave truthful testimony, but i would like to hear when a few weeks because a few months, are we to have the confidence the president says he has in you and the many people up and down the chain of command at justice who saw this program, this operation, and let it happen, and many people who called your legislative affairs representative, caused him to bring false testimony to the committee. it is i heard of fort letters or testimony to be taken back. they had to be taken back because " of people who still work for justice. i appreciate the opportunity to speak here and would ask that a member of my committee who has been intimately involved in the investigation also be allowed to sit on the dais under the same terms as mr. shipp -- schiff.

>> is he a member of congress could, >> he is a freshman from texas. he is an attorney. >> i understand there is no room right now, but we will consider the request in just a minute. as much as i would like to have a texas colleague up at the podium. >> you have a few, but he is not one. >> we certainly appreciate his expertise on the subject. let's wait until we have room and we will take it up at that point. >> the gentleman from virginia, mr. scott, is recognized for an opening statement. >> i join my colleagues in welcoming the attorney general this morning. i understand nivea -- the invitation to the attorney general to his pacifically reference gun trafficking in the southwest border. we have the opportunity to discuss with him the positive steps we must take to protect our citizens from illegal firearms. i am heartened that he recognizes the smartest and most effective way to protect

ourselves from crime is to prevent it from occurring in the first place. with respect to preventing firearm violence, there are steps we can take to reduce the total of injured and murdered. there are steps we must take in order to enhance the ability of law enforcement to effectively investigate gun crimes that have already occurred. it is often said around here that the best ready to use when you are in a whole is to stop digging. unfortunately, this committee approved and the house passed a dangerous bill that would override the law in almost every state by requiring each state to accept concealed handgun carry permits from other states, even if the permit holder would not be allowed to carry or even possess a handgun in his own state or the state. -- where he is traveling. actions like this make a hole deeper and do not make us safer. we in congress can best take

steps to help law enforcement prevent an investigate gun violence. with reference to the problem of gun trafficking on the southwest border, we know that the rule that went into effect in august requiring the reporting of multiple sales of certain assault weapons is an important tool to help law enforcement fight the purchasing that fuels the and trafficking. while the rules under consideration, 21 members of this committee voted last february to prevent funds from being used to implement this important reporting requirement. if that measure had been included in the final version, the prohibition against the reporting requirement had been included in the final version of the bill, the atf would not be receiving these reports today and that would be denied information which is helping them investigate effective purchasing. the atf has an important role of protecting us from the ages of illegal use and trafficking of

firearms. illegal use and storing of explosives and acts of arson and bombings. we must ensure that this agency is capable old fulfilling its important mission and it needs strong leadership. in that light, we need to encourage your senate colleagues to confirm the president's nominee to be director of the atf. we have learned that we need to give prosecutors a critical additional tool to fight gun trafficking. for example, we need a statute that specifically prohibits the transfer of multiple firearms into the hands of those legally ineligible to possess them and to those who intend to use them to commit crimes. i hope this committee will take action on legislation in this area in the near future. these are things we need to do to address the real problem and for those who want to focus on operations fast and furious, i would just note that these tactics originated in the atf

investigation under the bush administration and in november 16, 2007, refers to the effect that gun walking was already occurring in the bush administration. in contrast, there is no evidence that attorney general holder knew these tactics when they were being used, and he should be praised for consistently saying that they were unacceptable and referring the matter to the inspector general soon after he learned about them. i thank the attorney general for appearing here today and i look forward to his testimony. >> we are pleased to welcome today's witness, united states attorney general eric h. holder jr.. in 2009, he was sworn in as the 82nd attorney general of the united states. attorney general holder has enjoyed a long and distinguished career in public service. first joining the department through the attorney general's honors program in 1976. he became one of the barn's first attorneys to serve in the newly formed public integrity

section. he went on to serve as u.s. attorney for the district of columbia. in 1997 he was named by president than to be deputy attorney general. prior to becoming a attorney- general, mr. holder was a litigation partner in washington, d.c.. mr. holder, a native of new york city, is a graduate of columbia university and columbia law school. again, we welcome you and look forward to your testimony. >> mr. chairman, i would move that the witness be sworn. >> i am going to asked that the gentleman would draw that for two reasons. first of all, the attorney general did receive a letter from the committee reminding him of the need and in effect that he is testifying under oath. we don't need to go through that necessarily, because that is

assumed by anybody who does testify before the committee. >> a point of inquiry. isn't it true that a false statement to congress bears a different criminal violation than a sworn statement? >> i believe the answer to that is yes. >> then i would once again ask, since this committee has at times sworn witnesses, as have all the committees, that in light of -- >> i misunderstood the question, and the answer was no. >> it is exactly the same, under our rules progress then i will withdraw. >> i thank the gentleman. if the attorney general will proceed. >> chairman smith, ranking member conyers and members of the committee, i appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to describe the decisive action we have taken to ensure that the plot tactics used in

operation fast and furious and in an earlier operations under the prior administration are never repeated. after only three years, i have been a privilege to work with this committee to strengthen national security and law enforcement. i am extremely proud of our record of achievement in offices around the world. the department's 170,000 police have made historic progress in protecting the american people from a range of unprecedented threat from global terrorism and violent crime, to financial fraud, human trafficking, and more. we have disrupted numerous potentially devastating terrorist plots. the department's efforts on behalf of the most mobile among us including victims of civil rights abuses and hate crimes, have never been more effective. the partnerships we have built have never been stronger. today is toward privilege to be joined by several of our key

public sector partners. these five police executives, commissioner ed davis of boston, chief rodney monroe of charlotte, the chief of detroit, and commissioner charles ramsey of philadelphia, have been leaders in developing and implementing innovative and effective crime-prevention strategies. they have also work closely with the department in advancing critical efforts to reverse the alarming rise in law enforcement fatalities in recent years. the work that we do along the self with or is influenced by the efforts they have undertaken in their own cities. in the cities they serve and in communities across the country, this work is a priority. in our ongoing efforts to protect the american people and our brave long for -- law enforcement personnel, critical area of focus will continue to be our battle against gun violence on the southwest border. the department has devoted significant resources to this fight and specifically to

address and the unacceptable rate of illegal firearms trafficking from the united states to mexico. in the pursuit of that goal, unacceptable tactics were adopted as part of operation fast and furious. as i have repeatedly stated, allowing guns to what, whether in this administration or the prior one, is totally unacceptable. the use of this misguided tactic is inexcusable and it must never happen again. soon after learning about the allegations raised by atf agents involved with fast and furious, i took action designed to ensure accountability. i ask the acting inspector general to investigate the matter and in early march i ordered that a directive be sent to law enforcement agents and prosecutors prohibiting such tactics. more recently, the new acting director of atf implemented reforms to prevent these tactics from being used in the future, including training and stricter oversight procedures for all

significant investigations. although the department has taken steps to ensure that such tactics are never used again, it is an unfortunate reality that we will continue to feel the effects of this blogger operation for years to come. the onslaught during this operation will continue to show up at crime scenes on both sides of the border. as we work to identify where terrorism occurred and ensure that these mistakes never happen again, we must not lose sight of the critical challenge that this blogger operation has highlighted. that is the battle to stop the flow of guns to mexico. of the nearly 94,000 guns that have been recovered and traced in mexico in the last five years, more than 64,000 resource to the united states. during this time on the trafficking of firearms across the southwest border has contributed to approximately 40,000 deaths in mexico. the reforms we have undertaken do not make any of the losses of life more bearable for grieving

families. these tragedies do portray in stark terms the difficult challenges that law enforcement agencies confront every day in working to disrupt illegal arms transfers. operation fast and furious appears to have been a deeply flawed effort to respond to these very challenges. as we work to avoid future losses and for the mistakes, it is unfortunate that some have used inflammatory and inappropriate rhetoric about one particular tragedy that occurred near the southwest border in efforts for -- in an effort to score political points. agent brian terry was violently murdered in arizona. we all should feel outrage about his death, and as i have communicated directly to his family, we are dedicated to pursuing justice on his behalf. the department is also working to answer questions that the tariff family has raised, including whether and how firearms connected to fast and

furious in the up with mexican drug cartels. i expect the department's acting inspector general to answer these questions in her review. i understand that congress also wants answers. just as to permit employees have been working tirelessly to identify, locate, and provide relevant information to this committee and to the two other committees investigating fast and furious, all while preserving the integrity of our ongoing criminal investigations and crossed the -- prosecutions. the department has been fully cooperative and responsive in its dealings with congress. i have answered questions in the house and senate on four occasions concerning this matter. to date, we have provided almost 5000 pages of documents for congressional investigators to review. we have scheduled numerous witness interviews and testified at public hearings, and just last week, we provided an unprecedented access to internal delivered of document to explain how inaccurate information was

initially conveyed to congress. these documents demonstrate that just as determined personnel relied on information provided by supervisors in the components in the best position to know the relevant facts. we now look, you know that some information provided by the supervisors was inaccurate. and stan that in subsequent interviews, the supervisors have stated that they did not know at the time that information provided in a letter to congressional leaders earlier this year was inaccurate. the documents produced the they also rely the remarkable notion that this operation was conceived by the poor and leaders as some have claimed. this, i understanding that the former leaders were not informed about the inappropriate tactics involved in this operation until those tactics were made public. as is customary, turn to those with supervisor responsibility of the operation in an effort to learn the facts. what is clear is that disrupting the dangerous flow of

firearms along the southwest border and putting an end to the violence that has claimed far too many lives is and will continue to be a top priority with this department justice. this year alone we have led successful investigations into the murders of u.s. citizens in mexico, created new cartel targeting units and secured the extradition of more than 100 defendants wanted by u.s. law enforcement, including the former head of the tijuana cartel. we also built crimefighting capacity on both sides of the border by using new procedures, by training thousands of mexican prosecutors and investigators, i successfully fighting to enhance sentencing guidelines for convicting traffickers, and by pursuing coordinated, multi district investigations of gun trafficking rings. despite this progress, we have more to do. each of us has a duty to act and to rise above partisan

divisions and politically motivated games. the american people deserve better. it is time for a new dialogue about these important issues, one that is respectful, responsible, and factual. this will require us to apply the lessons we have learned from law enforcement officers like the ones who sit behind me today to protect public safety and our national security every day. in that regard, not only did atf agents bring the inappropriate tactics up fast and furious to light, it also sounded the alarm for more effective laws to combat drug trafficking and grupo effective. atf agents who testified before the house committee on oversight and government reform this summer explain that the agency's ability to stem the flow of guns from the u.s. into mexico suffers from a lack of effective enforcement tools. when critical first that should be for congress to provide atf with the tools and authorities that it needs.

earlier this year, the majority of house members voted to keep law enforcement in the dark and individuals purchase multiple semiautomatic rifles and shotguns in southwest border states. going forward, i hope we can work together to provide law enforcement agents with the tools they desperately need to protect the country and ensure it their own safety. for their sake, it cannot afford to allow the tragic mistakes of operation fast and furious to become a political sideshow or a series of media opportunities. instead, we must move forward and recreate ourselves to our shared public said the obligations. i am willing to work with you in this effort. i look forward to your questions. >> and other members are going to ask you about fast and furious, so i am going to pick a different subject and ask about the extent of just kagan's involvement with the health care

legislation. to your knowledge, did the then solicitor general kagan ever give advice or express an opinion on legal or constitutional issues involving the health care legislation? >> i do not believe so. as i testified in the senate, last month, we took steps to physically exclude -- >> what month did that take place? >> i am not sure when that started. my memory is that whenever we had conversations about the health care bill, then solicitor general kagan was not present. >> she testified that she first became aware of that possibility that she might be considered in early march. so you would not have excluded her prior to early march. >> again, i don't know exactly

when these events occurred, but i do feel comfortable in saying that in terms of the conversations that occurred in my conference room about the health care legislation -- >> would you have had any reason to exclude her prior to the time that she was considered for the supreme court? >> i can tell you that with regard to conversations that occurred in my conference room about the health care bill, i did not remember her being present for any of them. >> would you be able to check your records to find out what the date would have been when you started telling her that she should excuse or recuse herself from those discussions? >> i will attempt to do that. i am not sure that information exist any place, but i will attempt to do that. >> would you have a record of any meetings that she attended? if you went back and looked at your schedule, i assume that

would be on your schedule. >> the schedule listed the people who are expected to be there. i don't know if we actually keep tracking -- >> if you will give me the dates when you started telling her that, again, i don't believe you have any reason to exclude her before she was being considered for the supreme court vacancy. she would actually have a duty to be involved in the conversation regarding the health care bill. let me go to another question. this goes to some of the correspondence i had written you, asking for documents and to be allowed to interview both present and former staff members. is the department asserting a legal privilege in refusing to comply with our request for those documents and those interviews about then solicitor general kagan's involvement with the health care legislation. >> the department has released documents relating to this -- to this matter. those documents are certainly

available to this committee. the documents we have released are consistent with -- >> i am not asking about the documents. are you a starting a legal privilege? is that why you are refusing to give me those documents? >> in trying to determine the answers to the questions you have, with regard to refusal questions, those are questions best brought by those who are involved in the context of the litigation. >> so you are not asserting any legal privilege. >> it seems there are separation of powers concerns, given the fact that members of congress are -- out have concerns there with regard to separation. >> what would be the legal privilege you are asserting, if ?ou assert roone is there any reason therefore i should not get the documents or be able to interview the individuals that are requested to interview? >> as i have said, federal law

provides for the resolution of these accusal questions, and each justice has to make those kind of -- >> i am not talking about recusal questions or what the supreme court justice might or might not do. i am talking about my request for documents. i cannot imagine a reason you would withhold them, unless you were to assert a legal privilege. i have not heard you say you are asserting a legal privilege. >> the documents have essentially been released -- >> the documents are requested may or may not have been released. that is what we are trying to find out, is what other documents might address. if you are not asserting a legal privilege, then i will move forward with scheduling those interviews and look forward to the document. >> we have not expressed a legal privilege, but we have expressed a constitutional concern about the nature --

>> i know, but concerns don't rise to the level of a legal privilege. if you are not going to assert a legal privilege, then i don't see any reason why should not get those documents and conduct those interviews. thank you for that. the gentleman from michigan, mr. connors, is recognized for his questions. -- mr. conyers. >> you have here chief route gotbe, lots of other police chiefs and law enforcement people behind you. would you tell us how you partner with them to fight violent crime, particularly the gunrunning, with state and local police officers who are on the front lines? >> the gentleman who sit behind me and the people they represent are essential partners in the fight against violent

crime generally and against gun violence in particular. the federal government relies on our state and local partners who are obviously in the front lines in this fight. we try to support them in ways that we can. we try to come up with programs that protect their lives, but the reality is that in coming up -- i think these five gentlemen our good to have here today. they are the ones to come up with really innovative programs that we have tried to support and expand across the nation. they are first and foremost great partners in this fight. what they are doing in their cities are things we are trying to replicate in the work we are doing along the southwest border as well. >> thank you. tell me, where is the mexican government's in all of this gun running and violence, the drug

epidemic that goes on that usually starts in mexico, but eventually gets to the u.s. and the southwest area. what is the mexican government's role and attitude? how do you work with them? >> they have also been good partners. president calderon has courageously committed his government to fight the cartels. he has done so in a way that has done great political cost. has certainly cost the lives of many mexican law enforcement officials who have been part of the battle. 40,000 people in mexico have lost their lives over the course of the last five years in connection with this bike. the mexican government is committed to eradicating the cartels. we have worked with them in unprecedented ways in terms of extraditing people to the united states, in sharing -- we have

moved resources to the southwest border and have linked up task forces with our mexican partners. our interaction with the mexican government in dealing with these cartels is really unprecedented. >> i mentioned several things that we really ought to do in terms of getting on top of not just the gun smuggling and the gun walking, but the general problem -- the drug problem as well. you are our chief law- enforcement officer in the nation. i know you are relying on state and local law enforcement as well, but what are the big

issues? what is the big picture in terms of what it is we might want to consider in the congress to help get on top of this and to help you and the department of justice get on top of not only the drugs but the guns as well? >> there are certain things that would be very helpful. there is no gun trafficking statute now or even an express prohibition on strong purchasing. if congress would consider legislation in that regard, that would be good. we have to rely now on paperwork violations to try to get at gun traffickers. the sentences that are typically given for those kind of technical violations are far too low for the serious nature of the crimes. it is far too easy for criminals to get their hands on weapons,

congressional support for regulation that we put in place and those border states to deal with the long guns that can be purchased their, regulation that is consistent with what we are ready do with regard to handguns. it is something that congressional support would be important for. so the possibility of having ways in which we could have a good dialogue about effective measures that would reduce the flow of guns to mexico, make this nation more said, protect the lives of people and law enforcement in this country, and respect the second amendment at the same time, is something i think a good dialogue with members of congress would be very productive. >> i am glad you mentioned the second amendment, so that my friend and colleague there'll eisa -- darrell issa will not be

nervous about the strategy you are using. >> i will still be nervous. >> i thank you very much, general holder, and i return the balance of my time. >> the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for his questions. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. mr. holder, i deeply appreciate your coming here to talk largely about fast and furious. the way this has been handled within the justice department i think has put the justice department as an institution under cloud that has not been exceeded since the infamous:del prado -- cointelpro scandal of the 1960's. do you think the buck stops with you? >> i am responsible for what

occurs within the department. if you look at what happened with regard to fast and furious and decide what kind of performance i have done in this regard, i think you have to look at what happened, what i did once i learned of these matters. >> that is a question of when you learned it, because there have been inconsistent submissions to congress. you yourself testified that you had only heard about it a few weeks earlier, and then in november he said it probably was a few months. bge use said it probably was a few months. as late as october 7, in response to allegations that on may 3, you wrote your statement on fast and furious had been truthful and consistent. then you are underlings on february 4 responded to senator grassley, denying that the atf had walked bonds. that letter ended up being withdrawn.

as mr. issa has said, lying to congress is a federal felony. i don't want to say that you have committed a felony, mr. attorney general, but obviously there have been statements so misleading that a letter had to be withdrawn. i think that some heads should roll, and i agree with senator grassley that assistant attorney general for the criminal division should be fired. i know that decision is not yours, but it is the president's. i think merely getting the head of the atf director at the time is not sufficient, since it is obvious that there was knowledge within the justice department. what are you going to do to clean up this mess? >> first, let me make something very clear. in response to an assertion you made or hinted at, nobody in the justice department has lied.

>> why was the letter withdrawn? >> there was information in there that was inaccurate. the justice department letter of february -- >> tell me what is the difference between lying and misleading congress in this context? >> if you want to have this legal conversation, it all has to do with your state of mind and whether or not you had the requisite intent to come up with something that could be considered perjury or a lie. the information provided in that february letter was gleaned by the people who drafted the letter after the interacted with people who they thought were in the best position to have the information. >> the wagons down the street or in a pretty tight circle, mr. attorney general. the american people need the truth. they have not gotten the truth from what has been coming out of the justice department in the last year, and they are relying on congress to get the truth. you are here today, and i appreciate your being here

today, as a way to get the true. but the answers you have given so far are basically saying somebody else's it it -- somebody else did it. there is really no responsibility within the justice department. the thing is that if we don't get to the bottom of this, and that requires your assistance on that, there is only one alternative that congress had. it is called impeachment, where our subpoena powers -- cannot be any type of legal immunity or privilege that can be asserted on that. i have done more impeachments than anybody else in the history of the country. it is an expensive and messy affair, and i don't want to go this far. but if we keep on getting

pushed down the road and the can keeps on getting kicked and we don't get closure to this, what is congress to do so that we don't spend all our time in court arguing privilege, which is not a way to get at the truth. >> the justice department has released facts, and i think that is what we need to focus on, fax. -- facts. i made the determination that we would release things the justice department has never released before, delivered to material about how that letter was put together, information that clearly could have been withheld and has always been withheld by my predecessors and i would expect by my successors as well. getting to the bottom of this is something that we all want to do. the inspector general, pursuant to my request, is conducting an investigation of this matter,

and i suspect will have a great many more answers than we presently do. i don't have the ability to do a top to bottom investigation at this point out of deference to the investigation being done by the inspector general. that does not preclude me from taking action that i think appropriate, based on information that comes to my attention, in spite of the fact that the inspector general has an ongoing investigation. an independentve counsel, and we end up having the justice department investigating itself in absence of an independent counsel. having gone true interminable hearings on cointelpro, you have to get this done much more quickly than plugging the holes that it ended up showing existed in the department at that time.

>> her for what reason -- >> i seek clarification. the gentleman indicated impeachment. i was not sure which official of person he was speaking up. >> the gentleman was referring to the fact that while he was chairman of this committee, he oversaw the impeachment process. >> the statement that the only one alternative is impeachment -- >> this is not a parliament terry inquiry. -- a parliamentary inquiry. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to yield a little time to the ranking member on this issue. >> i merely wanted to clear the record jim. i have had far more impeachment experiences than he has.

>> will the gentleman yield? >> the answer is only if the chairman allows my time to be extended. >> the gentleman is recognized for a full five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we have heard a lot, some of it quite unbelievably overblown. i would like to give you some of the truth as i see it's. you are on record as admitting that the fast and furious program was a fundamentally flawed program. fast and furious is only one program in many undertaken by u.s. law enforcement authorities, not only to limit the harm of illegal gun trafficking, but most important, keep the broader goal of protecting u.s. and mexican

citizens. there has to be a little perspective on what is going on in the u.s.-mexico relationship on this issue. once president calderon made the historic decision to take the fight directly to the drug cartels, law enforcement of the mexico and the united states became more complicated and more dangerous. the fact is, and i see it from a foreign affairs committee perspective as well as from this perspective, that u.s.-mexico law enforcement cooperation and general cooperation is wider and deeper than it has ever been in the history of our two nations. the permanent justice has apprehended and extradited an unprecedented number of criminals, including some of the most dangerous cartel leaders. they have successfully investigated violent crimes committed against american nationals in mexico and along the border. that train hundreds of mexican

prosecutors and police officers, many of whom worked side-by-side with u.s. counterparts on these shared goals. the level of intelligence sharing and cooperation is unprecedented at this particular time. we also have to knowledge the negative impact caused by the significant stream of funds going into mexico from the united states. every day, thousands of guns are smuggled across the u.s. border into mexico, making citizens of mexico and the united states less safe. u.s. southwest border states, texas, new mexico, arizona, and california, or the top source locations for firearms received and traced in mexico back to the united states. general holder, i am wondering if you could develop -- i think you got into this a little bit with ranking member conyers,

what could the congress be doing in terms of funding, in terms of passing laws to help make this a successful endeavour? i would like you to just expand on some of those specific issues. are we giving you the resources you need to make this cooperation produced a goal that both countries government's share? >> frankly, no. we have saw additional legislative enhancements to our abilities to deal with the gun trafficking problem, as i indicated to the ranking member. operate in these teams. i think we've requested them so we would have 14. that number was reduced based on the funding level that we got which decreased our ability to interact effectively.

there are funding issues. and there are issues with regard to the confirmation with the atf director. there are tools we could use from congress that we have proposed. all these things would help us in the fight against drug trafficking. >> the only thing i would close with the simple statement that as we pursue responsibly on a program that you have stated was fundamentally flawed and that we keep in mind our obligations as a congress to help. i think there is a broad consensus and must expand and achieve the goals that our governments are committed to and to have some perspective on what is going on. it seems to have been lost on some of the rhetoric.

>> i yield back. >> do i have time to yield? i yield. >> i make the sense that fast and furious is not a program. it is just an operation. it is just an operation. >> the gentleman is recognized for an additional 30 seconds. >> i take your point. i do not quite understand it. >> the gentleman from california has the time. >> will he continue to yield? >> the point i am making that there is a wide question of things that go on. i agree that we need to look at the management of justice. the small operation and refusal to give us the truth early on -- >> i appreciate the time. i would also like to hear about

the congress agenda to make this as effective as it could be, funded in the legislation regarding the paper trail on the guns and all the other things that the general mentioned we should be doing. >> thank you. did the committee will stand in recess until immediately after breaks.ediately afterfoof four we will return about 1:15 p.m. we stand in recess. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> what about my flight time? >> we saidet it to 4:00.

>> we will bring you this hearing later tonight. you can watch it on line any time on our website, c-span.org. you also find scheduling information on the c-span television networks. >> the judiciary committee will come to order. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. >> thank you. good morning. the fbi operates under attorney

general guidelines for all of the investigating activities. the objective is full utilization of all authority of investigative ma activities. it must respect liberty and privacy and avoid unnecessary intrusion into the lives of law- abiding citizens. they allow the fbi to perform with confidence. did the purpose of the guidelines is to establish consistent policy in such matters. does the atf and other department components operate under these guidelines? >> there are general guidelines that exist that control the activities of agencies that are part of the department of

marshal service. there might be some that apply specifically to the fbi, given its unique mission in regard to terrorism. >> i think he may have already answered this one. guidelines?ntical does one agency to do something that another cannot do 1? how do they differ from the guidelines under which the fbi operates? >> there are general guidelines that control the way investigations occur. if we are looking at fast and furious, those are outside the guidelines that apply to atf and drugide the an administration. one thing we have tried to do is come up with a whole set of new

policy changes and recommendations with regard to how they can handle and conduct certain investigations. >> if i had two words to describe "fast and furious" it would be reckless at best and a disaster at worst. fire arms sold under the "fast and furious" program were included in atf statistics on the retail sale of firearms. it now that we know that atf skewed the statistics, will the statistics be abandoned? >> i do not know if that is true. the 2000 weapons that were involved should not be counted as part of that overall number. we would pull them. i do not know if it is true or

not. >> have you implemented any policy to and programs such as "fast and furious?" >> in addition to the things that todd jones has put in place that deals with the problems that are most egregious about atf, you talked about the way surveillance has to occur. i released in march 80 directive that indicated that gun walking is prohibited. it major every agent in the justice department and every prosecutor understands that. it is cleared thatgu gun walking has never been acceptable, especially after my policy pronouncement in march.

>> earlier this year, you named todd jones as the new director of atf. this appears irregular. he currently continues to serve as u.s. attorney for that area of minnesota. he is wearing two hats. am i missing the mark? >> it is a regular. we have a nominee who could be the head of atf. i thought a management change was necessary in absence. i had to go with you i thought was best for the organization. todd is very experienced. he is wearing two hats and working extremely hard. he has made meaningful changes and lifted morale and put in place a regulations that would keep it from happening again.

given my druthers, i would rather have a permanent one at atf. >> my red light has eliminated. >> another gentleman from north carolina is recognized. >> thank you. i had hoped the way my colleague from north carolina started his questioning that we were going to treat this as a general oversight hearing which is the way my memo said it was going to be rather than an inquiry into one single subjects. i want to spend my time speaking about other things unrelated to fast and furious. there are a number of important things going on. some of those things may

tremendously good decisions. one is to have all these police chiefs sitting behind you today. hometownom is from buyinmy of charlotte. for members on the democratic side, they will get to know the chief when they come to charlotte for the democratic national convention. i want to applaud the work that he is doing to prepare us for that significant national event. perhaps the police chief from tampa is behind y'all. i do not know him. he will be doing that counterpart work for the republicans at the republican national convention. that is a massive undertaking. i know that the attorney

general's office, did the department of justice, a secret service, all of the federal authorities are working well based on everything i have heard to prepare for those big security events. i want to say publicly how much i applaud that. secondly, there are a number of things going on an issue that we are dealing with or trying to deal with in committee. it is dealing with online piracy. we have some propose legislation. i will not ask you to comment on that. i would ask you to comment on the extent of the problem and briefly on what the department of justice is doing to try to combat online piracy and privacy

and so we can get the bill passed. i say briefly because i have one other subject i want to get to when it comes to voter suppression and redistricting and the clearance process under the voting act. voter suppression may not be as important to some of my colleagues as "fast and furious." for a number of people who would like to have the opportunity to vote, these are very serious issues. why don't ask you to comment on what is happening in both of those areas, online piracy and the voter suppression redistricting? >> we have been very aggressive with regard to our law enforcement efforts concerning

intellectual property. i established a task force. i traveled to china last year. i was at the white house two weeks ago to announce a program where i had a radio spot in addition to television spots to talk about the whole question of piracy. we have to understand the significance of it. we have a moral and legal problem that it is a job killer also. when things like intellectual anderty are stolen inappropriately, it cost jobs. it inhibits creativity. we have looked at it in variety of ways. victoria heads up the white house area. this is a priority item.

of like to work with you with regard to the bill to see if we can come up with a way to do this. with regard to voter suppression and challenges, we have filed a number of lawsuits with regard to changes under covered districts. i will be giving a speech at the lbj library on monday and talking about this. the justice department has a responsibility under the voting at proposeto look changes that are in areas covered by the voting rights act. there's only so much i can say. we have to act in a neutral way. i am concerned about the things

i have seen. i was a prosecutor. i investigated voter fraud. i was a young prosecutor. i am concerned that some of these changes go far beyond that which exists in terms of this. it will increase the number of people that have the ability to vote, whether it is after the civil war with the inf french meant -- with the infringement of women. we want people to have their voices heard in the most important way. that is by casting votes. >> thank you.

>> good morning. i continue to hear from many i.c.e. agents said they are frustrated with difficulty with the u.s. attorneys prosecuting with working enforcement cases. can you give us specific data regarding the number of prosecutions and how many they have declined? >> if you would allow me to respond to that. i am sure i can come up was some numbers. >> i can completely understand that. for the record, i would appreciate that information as soon as you can get it.

welfare fraud plays a large role. the fact that it is playing a significant threat as it relates to the fund, there have been several estimates that exceeded in excess of fraud. includingso a crime from europe. they are finding that filing fraudulent claims is a fast way to make a lot of money.

most of that money is going offshore. can you give us any detail into what doj is doing in working with local law enforcement? i have met with my local people in los angeles. they are frustrated. how much effort is being put into this? >> you are right to point this out as an issue of great concern. we work with our partners at hhs. kathleen sebelius and i have been to a number of places to raise the consciousness of local officials working with our federal partners to deal with this problem. it is a multi-billion dollar issue. given the problems we have with the solvency of the programs, we need to get a handle on it. we have task forces around the country.

we are at 13 cities now. i think that is right. that is the way we see the greatest amount of a fraud. we delay these task forces. they proved to be affected. they tended to move a from that side and go to another city. the concern you raise is very real. it is something that we have to pay attention to. it is something i hope you will receive adequate funding for. >> i appreciate the assessment that these are moving on to other cities. i am sure it will not come as any news flash that that is not necessarily the case in in areas like los angeles. they may move but it may be across the street or into another pigeonhole where millions of prescriptions are

never filled and a storefront that maybe have 150 square feet that have provided so-called medicare recipients in thousands. how would you describe the level of success you feel that you are having with the resolutions to these folks that you are after? how many major rings have you been able to shut down? >> i will have to provide it to you after the session. the way in which you have described the issue, these moves are moving from one place to another. there is this notion of storefronts. it describes the problem.

it will come in for services that are nigh. it is the way which you have described it. >> if you will be kind enough to get this information, i would like specificity as it relates to prescriptions. they received as many as three or four mammograms' in one week. >> you describe something that has to be a priority. i hope that congress will support our funding request.

we saved money by investing small amounts of money in prevention and enforcement. it makes the programs that much more financially stable. >> i look forward to seeing the data. >> i would like that he be able to sit here. we have a number of seats that are vacant on this side. since you will not be asking questions -- >> i was just getting recommendinready to recognize t. >> he looks better over there.

>> the gentleman from texas is recognized for further questions. >> thank you. let me first thank you for your service and those who are sitting so prominent -- prominently behind you. i think my former mayor is there. he had the ability of being mayor. the former police chief has now moved on to philadelphia. i was looking at the time line. i was looking at the time line of "fast and furious."

when were you sworn in at? >> february 2009. >> the atf launched this in 2005. were you in the department then addax i do not recollect it. >> i was not. >> this is a program that started under the bush administration. >> gunrunners started under the bush administration. "fast and furious" started during the obama administration. >> it is a continuity of stores. it was designed to stop the flow from mexico. >> i'm looking at the news articles. i am reading some numbers that are overwhelming. one number says that nearly 40,000 have been killed in the drug war there.

is that in price from your perspective? >> these are 40,000 people killed in mexico. it is a national security concerns. >> i have described it as a flawed investigation in concept and execution. >> you made it very clear. >> it is something where mistakes were made. we have to figure out where the mistakes were made. >> we have offered our sympathy to any fallen officer, in particular to fallen officer that was murdered in arizona.

you mentioned what we can do when it comes to the gun trafficking law. i would ask the chairman that our committee began hearing on that. we need to be partner. hr82 allows anyone to carry a gun into a state whether they have a permit. i see officers behind you. my argument is that this may jeopardize our officers. i have a list of opponents that include 56 major police. this was passed on the floor of the house. i ask the chairman to allow me to put this again in the record regarding opposing it.

>> it will be made a part of it. >> let me ask you how it potentially, the damage and the devastation that may impact local chiefs and apartments that are on the street every day. >> the concern that we have regard to officers' safety is something we have focused on a lot. we have seen drops in crime rates. we have seen a tragic rise in the number of officers who have been killed in in line of duty. we have seen a spike. a >> he compared this to a major devastating incidents. to it happens to a person who is on the committee. i know well what it was.

also dealing with the incident in terms of gun running. the point is, when an attorney general covers up a torture memo, we should not so lightly point to an incident of it happening in your department for you are fully investigating it. i questioned general gonzales over and over again about the happenings in hospital with the then attorney general ashcroft. this is when gonzales became general. it was an international incident. i could never get the truth on that particular set of circumstances. what does that compare the full investigation that you are engaged in with something worse than what we could have

expected. there is no basis in the law for any impeachment proceedings. i just want to be very clear that we are not in the grandstanding position today. we are getting the truth position. you are in the business of getting the truth. >> the gentleman from virginia is recognized for questions. >> i would like to ask you a question regarding an investigation in another committee, the energy and commerce committee. it relates to the solyndra corporation and therir investigation. the law that set up the incentives for innovative technologies provides for the

secretary of energy to notify the general when there is a default. if the borrower defaults, he shall notify the attorney general. did the secretary ever notified you of that default prior to this becoming the public spectacle it has become? >> i do not know. >> it requires it be transmitted to you. are you familiar with a transmission being related to you? >> this is not something that i have seen. it does that mean that it may not exist. >> the next section says that the attorney general sow take such action as is appropriate to recover the principle.

they are associated with this. in addition, that same public law provides the obligation shall be the subject to conditions that the obligation is not support and it to other finances. -- subordinate to other finances. they did do it to other private finances. i am wondering if given the fact it appears it was violated if they will investigate what happened there and how it was. and if that investigation is

taking place. >> on september the eighth, agents from the fbi and the department of energy executed search warrants on solyndra's offices. it precludes my ability to speak too much about this matter other than to say it is something we have under active investigation. >> would you take a look and determine whether that notification from secretary chu was sent and when it took place? bob >> i can give you that answer. with regard to the "fast and furious" investigation, although the department has taken steps to ensure that these tactics are never used again, it is an

unfortunate reality that we will continue to feel the effects for years to come because thousands of fire arms were transferred as a part of this program. what are you doing to track them down? >> that is what i said before. to be will be feeling the repercussions of those mistakes for years to come. we will be seeing these weapons in united states certainly in mexico as well. we are in the process of trying to determine where they are and use the tools that we have to seize these weapons. >> you know who purchased them and when and where they were purchased. are you aggressively following those lead? are you attempting to recover

through those individuals these weapons? >> we are trying. >> how many have you recovered? >> several hundred have been recovered. i do not know what the number is now. we are trying several hundred weapons. they have been recovered. >> if they are difficult to follow, why bread they allowed

to get into this pipeline in the first place? >> that is the flaw. >> thank you. the gentleman from california is recognized. cried thank you. -- >> thank you. i am trying to sort out some contradictions that are very obvious in whole discussion. they continue the act of funding the 20111 to prohibit the funds for a new regulation. from what i can understand, the

atf proposal would allow i'l dealers to file reports bond all ones. within five consecutive business days if the rifles are larger than 22 caliber. i do not know whether this would apply to california and texas. my real question is given all of your action and your opposition to gun walking that started in previous administration and the way in which you are trying to make sure that this does not hy wouldgain,wh w hy anyone propose that your hands

be tied and that you not be able to have a proposal that would make all of a safer? i live in california. we are constantly bombarded with the reports of drug lords in the killings that go on the border. and the creeping in san diego and other parts of california. i am very supportive of what you have identified by way of containing guns being easily accessible to the drug lords and not allowing gun walking to happen again. can you discuss with me why your proposal should be adopted by atf and what would happen if this ammendment would

successfully gets a pass on to the president's desk? how would this hamper your efforts? >> this is a very reasonable and limited measure. it only applies to the four states that border mexico. it would apply be atf with real time information. it is consistent with the rules that now exists with regard to the purchase of handguns. just to get a dramatic example, if someone walks into one of these licensed dealers and one of those four states without this provision and wanted to buy that would not be reported to the atf. if the information was reported, it they would have the ability

to make determinations as to whether or not there is something we need to be concerned about. in absence of the provision, someone can walk in am by as many of those dangerous weapons as they want. >> that was a dramatic statement that you just made. someone could legally purchase sort youons of the stor just reported? >> it would have to be reported if this was in place. >> you are talking about ak-47s? >> yes. i'm using a dramatic example. >> that is alarming.

are you sure you have made them aware of how they could potentially hamper the ability to get that kind of information that would be so important to atf? >> we have tried to share this information. we are in litigation now. >> i am thankful that you can make this clear to the members of congress. i am upset that many members do not understand what would happen with the amendment. i think it is important that we acts you havet described. >> the gentle man from

california is recognized. >> with respect to the previous that gun runner programs, in those programs, are you aware of whether or not the agents involved were instructed to break up surveillance once the weapons were delivered? >> they were not. the programs are different in terms of the instructions that were given. they made their way to mexico. >> i understand that. were you aware of that program? were you aware of the failure of the wide receiver program? >> i became aware of it during the course of our examination of "fast and furious." >> was your supervision aware of the wide receiver either prior to the time "fast and furious"

or during the operation? >> we know people in the criminal division were aware of it. there were problems that were associated. >> can you give me any reason why anyone would believe that a program like this would be contemplated with the idea that agents would be instructed to break up surveillance once the weapons were delivered? isn't that asking for disaster? >> i do not disagree with you. that is a flawed concept. who and why they did it is something the inspector general will discover. >> you are running the department. he passed everything off to the inspector general before making decisions about whether people who are responsible for decision should remain in power. you would be giving the inspector general of the job to do. >> here is the reason i bring this up. you brought up the question in

previous administration. you want to do that. let's talk about the distinction between those programs. that was not done walking. you're talking about a controlled delivery. that means he does control the delivery. that meant you followed it afterward. they screwed up. indicatorsthey found those were found out by the bad guys. here is my problem. when i became congressmen, people said what is the difference between an attorney general and a congressman? after i finished a meeting, i do not have to go out and face reporters to ask me about something one of my 5000 employees has done that i do not know about. that was my internal thought.

i am responsible. i was responsible for what they did. we still do not know. we still do not know who knew what when and to make the decisions. -- and who made the decisions. cbs reports that there is a memo from atf field operations you see ifith "can the guns were purchase from the same dealer. we are looking for anecdotal cases to support a demand letter on gun sales."

i had a deal with people in my district to our citizens to believe in the second amendment to say the fed are overreaching. they are responsible for hundreds of thousands of weapons going to mexico. people are dying, including our law enforcement agents. and they are using that as an excuse to extend their reach into the law. i did this memo -- are you aware of the memo? >> no, i am not aware. >> would you think that the appropriate? >> you are taking a memo i think out of context. >> i will give you a chance to answer. i do not think i'm taking it out of context. this is in direct reference to the guns that are involved in "fast and furious." you have someone out of your direction.

there under your authorities saying that use this stuff. maybe it'll help us. they are using this as an excuse why they ship it more restrictions. how should i respond to this. >> they are doing an independent investigation. it'll take time. that does not lessen the irresponsibility that i have as head of manager of the justice department -- the response

ability that i have as head of the manager of the justice department. these were initial determinations i have made. i prepare to take other steps before they report back. i think the findings will be useful in making determinations. i do not need the inspector general to make certain determinations that i will make. with regard to the question of that whole memo and the role, the atf reached out to obtain examples of cases or operations where that kind of a role would have been helpful. "fast and furious" was one of them. seven cases under way, and the leaders cited as an example to illustrate this.

it is sort of self dealing. >> it creates a situation where weapons goes out in the hundreds and used as evidence that it occurred. it extends the reach of the law. >> with all due respect -- >> you are recognized for an additional 30 seconds. >> i say this with respect. think about the implications of what you are saying. the justice department came up with a flawed program in order to justify a regulation. given all that comes from it -- >> i am talking bout after the fact. you have to admit you screwed up and not use it as a basis. i am not talking about a

conspiracy. when you screw up, you have to say you screwed up. do not allow your screw up to be the basis for trying to extend your legislative agenda. that is all i am saying. >> there were seven cases. these things were already under way when that information was given. >> the gentleman from georgia is recognized. >> thank you. thank you for being here today. there is a whole -- hole in our laws that is so large that he did fly a space shuttle for it. spaceyou can fly a specia shuttle through it. they can sell an unlimited

amount of fire arms per year or per gun show to anybody without having to perform a background check as a licensed gun dealer must. we got thousands of gun shows per year being held throughout america. we've got untold numbers of licensed gun dealers who are selling their wares. you have untold thousands of unlicensed private weapons dealers who are selling firearms including automatic

assault rifles of the type that what away in operation for did walked -- that walked away in "fast and furious." how many did? >> the number that has been reported is 2000. >> 2000. how many fire arms are sold to al qaeda terrorists, to other convicted felons, to domestic violence perpetrators, to convi cted felons, to white supremacists? how many on licensed -- how many

assault rifles, just say in a given year, are sold to such individuals by unlicensed gun dealers at these gun shows that are unregulated? how many of those end up walking away to mexico? >> i do not have a number on that. >> do you think it to be more than a couple of hundred? >> i think it would be more than 2000. in terms of getting the numbers, i can try to provide that after the hearing. >> it would seem to me with thousands of gun shows and unknown numbers of private gun owners selling an unknown

number of weapons including assault rifles to unknown people, it would seem to me that there is the possibility that a whole lot more than 2000 weapons would walk out o the fn the gun show and find their way into the hands of a mexican gun cartel. would you agree with me? >> without knowing the numbers, i would not want to guess. one of the things we need to focus on is to know who actually is buying weapons. >> we do not have that ability right now with the gun show loophole. >> we do not have it across the board. >> over the last 5.5 years, you have had five acting directors of the atf. fa does the senate's

ilure and refusal to confirm a nominee for that important agency -- what affect is that have on the ability of the agency to be guided in a way so as to avoid the situations like "fast and furious?" >> when you have a confirmed head, there's a certain prestige that goes with that demarcation. beyond that, it allows a person to have a longer term, to have a certain consistency and programs to put in place that allowed "fast and furious" to happen. what todd jones has done as the acting head of atf is fairly remarkable. it would be a better thing if we

had somebody in his place who had a confirmed time and could extend the amount of time he ran the organization. todd is still the head of the u.s. attorney's office in minnesota. i cannot expect him to devote four years if they might as a full term. that consistency for an extended time i think has a huge positive impact on an organization. >> do you think the nra and other radicals of the second amendment have confidence that the u.s. will not have a competent atf head if the senate continues to deny a

leader thus rendering its leaderless? is politics causing that? >> it has a negative impact on the organization. there are certain groups that have actively opposed nominees both by president bush and president obama. they are both amply qualified to lead. they for whatever reason are not confirmed. >> the gentleman from california is recognized. >> i would be remiss if i did not take exception to calling the nra members "radicals." that is beneath contempt. we you come before the oversight without a need for a subpoena? -- will you come before the oversight committee without a need for a subpoena?

the one you produce these documents to in january time frame without a subpoena? >> i will consider it. i have testified on four occasions. >> you have appear before this committee. your organization pushed back on the request for a joint meeting. do i need to serve a subpoena on yourself and the other people under direct investigation of my committee or will you agree to come voluntarily? >> i will consider any request that you make. >> i thank you. i will now go to the question of e-mails. this is the document he referred to. most of these are e-mails. i have a question for you. not one of these e-mails is yours. aren't you a prolific female

lawyer? >-- emailer? >> no. i have an e-mail account at the justice department. >> do you have a personal e- mail? >> yes. >> do you currently e-mail to your former partner? >> i would as a regularly. there are a limited number of people who know my e-mail address. >> let me cut to the chase. don't you think it is conspicuous that there is not one e-mail to or from you relating to "fast and furious" in any way. >> there are a variety of reasons why the e-mails we have shared with you are there. we have shared in an unprecedented way information that no justice department or attorney general has ever authorize before. >> isn't it true that executive

privilege is not flow to the attorney general? running law enforcement is not served executive privilege as the chairman said. you have not cited any reason thatthat these have not been delivered. >> in making production determinations, we have all of the attorney general's and the past have used. he's a republican as well as democratic attorney general -- these are republican as well as democratic attorney generals. it has been unprecedented. >> unprecedented would be an attorney general who knew nothing about something who is chief of staff was intimately familiar. he was well aware of "fast and furious" on march 12, 2010. were you aware of that? he was aware of "fast and furious?"

>> it was brought to his attention as part of a regular briefing. he did not hear anything about the tactics. >> is that why, in his own handwriting, he understood -- what the tactic was. i am going to ask you a different question. he understood. you answered it less than truthfully. this is my time. i am not yielding. madam. >> he gets to answer the question. >> the gentleman from texas -- >> i would appreciate it if the witness would be allowed to enter the question. >> it is protocol here. >> the john -- the gentleman

from california has the time. >> you cannot answer on his behalf. it makes no sense. do you talk to your chief of staff? do you receive oral briefings when he made -- when you made the decision to have him be chief of staff? is it not reasonable to assume that if the new what this document in tails, he would also know? >>-- entails, you would also know? >> if he was not made intimate with the program. the briefing he received did not go into the tactics. >> of course it did not go into the tactics. i would ask that i have time a store that a lost. >> the gentleman is recognized for an additional minute.

>> i look forward to that. >> i was in the middle of an answer. >> you are in the middle of filibustering. i will let you answer. does it surprise you that these boxes represent what one gun dealer gave us voluntarily. this is all the information you have. does it cause you to think we believe you were withholding documents. we believe there is more production. my final question, you can answer all of them for as long as the chairman wants, do you have documents responsive to the lawful request of the oversight committee that have not been granted? >> let me go back to my first answer. >> mine is a yes or no. >> i will get to that. >> would you please get to that

first. >> he was not provided with a detailed analysis of "fast and furious." he was given information -- >> mr. chairman, i ask that the attorney general be placed under oath. i was denied that. i will make the point that it is not productive for anyone to come before the committee and tell us what somebody else did not know. the man behind him came and gave false testimony. people still working for the attorney general gave him misleading information. no action has been taken. >> regular order. >> i might note that the ig -- >> the gentleman from california continues to be recognized. let me make the point that he is not over time nearly as much as

the gentleman from texas. >> i would like to understand what it is a gentleman has extended time. >> he was recognized -- understand whether a gentleman has extended time pequot he is recognized. >> i will use -- time. >> he is recognized. >> i will use only five more seconds. he released information that was secret. she is not currently in our opinion qualified to investigate and has overstepped the line. this is the atf statement that was intimately involved. i want you to understand, i have treated him as a hostile witness because when he comes before us saying he is going to clean house, no house has been cleaned. >> time has expired.

the attorney general will be given the opportunity to respond. >> i will try again. he was not provided with information, as you have described, intimate information about operation "fast and furious." he was not told about the tactics. the person who did the briefing was the acting head of atf. he has testified before your committee that he did not share that information with him. i would note that a month before he said he did not share it with you, information about those tactics. the notion for your contention that he was familiar with this, it is inconsistent with what i think the facts are. you took me to task for trying to assume what i know. you have not interviewed him as

well, and yet you feel comfortable doing the same thing. with regard to the documents you have talked about, we have not withheld any documents that a responsive to the matters you have asked us about. we have withheld information pertains to ongoing investigations. what we produced on february 4 is unlike anything that any committee in any part of this congress, senate or house, has ever seen before. i want to make clear as we said, that is not presidential. i am not withholding. i do not think any future attorney general should be expected to do that. it made sense to make an exception to what has been a long-recognized rule. >> could he be allowed to fully answer whether or not his answer about did he provide --

>> the gentleman's time has expired. does the attorney general -- >> i was told. -- withold. >> i am fine. >> the gentleman from virginia is recognized. >> thank you general, a lot has been made of the letter he sent to you assistant general. nobody believes he has any personal knowledge of the information. they expected him to get the information and related. -- relay it. do you know where he got the false and permission? >> the information in that letter -- the incorrect information was derived from people in the field who had

operational responsibility for operation "fast and furious." both in the atf and the us attorney's office in phoenix. that information was presumed to be accurate. that information was transmitted to people in washington who put the letter together. if you look at the february 4 document production, you can see it -- how this went back and forth. how the letter was put together. it turned out, people in the knicks' head information that was not accurate. -- people in phoenix had information that was not accurate. >> what did you do when you found out the information was not accurate? >> one of the things i did early on was to ask the inspector general to look into this. i was hearing from inside the justice department one set of facts. i was hearing from members of

congress and the media something else. it seemed to me that given this information i was receiving, an investigation needed to be had. on february 28 i asked the inspector general to begin an investigation. >> an article in "usa today" says, "the program was fundamentally flawed, occurred with the knowledge and approval of justice." >> that is not true. the notion that people in washington, the leadership of the department, approved the use of those tactics in "fast and furious" is incorrect. this was a regional operation. it was controlled by atf and the

u.s. attorney's office in phoenix. >> there is a memo dated november 16, 2007 about a meeting of the attorney general with the mexican attorney general. it says, "atf has worked with mexico on the first attempt to control delivery of weapons. the weapons were smuggled into mexico by a major arms trafficker. well the first attempts have not been successful, the investigation is ongoing." does that suggest that guns were walking in 2007? >> not walking in the same with it were allowed to walk in the "fast and furious." guns did find their way into mexico in inappropriate ways. one thing i want people to

understand is, i do not know what attorney general did back then and how they reacted, with this attorney general -- i asked for an inspector general investigation. i said this activity was inappropriate. i made personnel changes. i am overseen substantial reforms thaat atf. >> thank you. switching subjects, the last administration was cited for political hiring within the civil rights division. have you continued that political hiring in violation of the lot? >> we hire people on the basis of their experience, their commitment to that which the civil rights division has stood for. people who are going to be good litigator. people who are going to work hard. we do not hire people on the

basis of political affiliations. >> thank you. i have a number of other questions. >> with the gentleman yield? -- would the gentleman yield? >> i would like to put into record the examiner and the los angeles times. mr. chairman? i ask unanimous consent. i yield back. >> the gentleman from iowa is recognized. >> thank you for coming here to testify in the bow of questions come to mind as i listened to the responses -- to testify. a number of questions come to mind as i listened to the responses. have you identified the weapon? >> that go into a ballistics

report determination. that is pending. >> it is still under investigation. >> there is an ongoing investigation. it's part of that trial will be the ballistics report. >> to attend but a suspect or a person of interest? -- have you identified a suspect or person of interest? somebody has been. something you can speak to today? >> there are some rules. >> there has been an indictment? >> yes, there has been an indictment. >> it you would tell us who that was, you could not do so in this setting?

>> that is correct. >> if we were in an executive session could you do that? what i do not think so. i think it is a court ordered sealed. but that is satisfactory. -- >> that is satisfactory. the have data on the number of mexicans -- do you have data on the number of mexicans who have been killed or there have been weapons used from "fast and furious?" how many mexicans do you estimate had been -- have died because of the weapons that had been sent to mexico? >> i do not know that figure. i feel that the number of people on the mexican side of the border will be negatively impacted by the mistakes of "fast and furious." there are going to be people who are harmed. i do not have any numbers. i'd be that is what is going to happen and has already happened -- i feared that is what is

going to happen and has already happened. >> to you have a report or data that gives you some sense of that? we know about agent terry. if this happened in the united states, i'm going to guess there are multiple deaths in mexico. are there any reports that give you a sense of this happening? is the communication going back and forth and identifying weapons that may have been used in crimes and homicides in mexico so you have a sense of that note? >> i do not have a sense of that yet -- number. >> i do not have a sense of that yet. we have traced 64,000 of those guns over the past years. we will trace some guns over the past years and months to "fast and furious." we will be able to connect those

weapons to crimes that have occurred in mexico. i have not received information. >> i would like to shift. i know last time you were before the committee we had a discussion about the arms issue. i submitted a series of questions. you have answered most of those in writing. i would like to narrow in on that. the issue, you said on that, the authority is the usda, the authority in the farm bill, it said the sections of the bill. i want to tell -- you cite the sections of the bill. i want to tell you, i had a conversation and i said the authorization you bring it will open up the door to $1.30 billion in additional claims.

his response was, no, that $100 million capps the spending on saddling all the outstanding claims. you'll be satisfied -- on settling all the outstanding claims. you will be satisfied with that. i have this section before me. i will ask consent to introduce it into the record. it says here that, it shall not exceed $100 million. it shall be construed to affect with its remedial purpose of giving a full determination. that is the language that opened it up. i will submit that the authority only exists to solve claims and cap them within $100 million. i have no intermission that tells me how many claims to have. i do not of any information that tells me what was spent on

attorney fees. >> we will get to that information. >> -- we will get you that information. >> including anything that is current. >> any information we have, i will make sure we get passed on to you. >> your time has expired. can i have consent to complete my question? thank you. i would ask that we know there are negotiations that took place between the department of the justice, usda, and representatives of the black farmers that sounded to be multiple organizations. i would ask you, you had a conversation with the secretary. who are those entities that were negotiated with?

>> i have talked about this matter with the secretary, the person who is responsible for the settlement of the case. there were a variety of organizations, and these comet individuals, who were engaged in something -- organizations, entities, individuals, who were engaged in something -- to try to reach an agreement. >> the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. >> thank you. general holder, i have an understanding of this issue some. it is a great tragedy this agent was killed. it will be a year next week. it was a "fast and furious"

weapon that killed him. is there any difficulty in mexico for folks who are part of these drug cartels or folks that get guns? our guns plentiful and mexico? -- are guns plentiful in mexico? >> they are readily available. part of the problem is the fact that so many guns flow from the united states to mexico. i have said, it is 64,000 weapons traced to the united states. those are only the ones that were traced. there are additional guns in mexico that have not been traced. >> i would presume that if that did not occur, the individuals who committed this act, this violent act, they probably would

have had weapons anyway. >> we can never -- you can never supposed. . it would be hard to determine committee i do not think that is an illogical conclusion -- determined. i do not think that is an illogical conclusion. they could have had access to other weapons. >> i remember the president of mexico's and most of the guns that come there, the dead states -- of mexico sang most of the gun that come there come from the united states. we supply him with guns and a market. we could drive the market up. -- dry the market up. what a we doing to stop them from going into mexico? -- what are we doing to stop guns from going into mexico?

>> we work with our partners at dhs to come up with ways to inspect cars going to mexico. we have teams of agents that work to determine ways we can stop the flow of guns. we use intelligence methods. i cannot get into them, to try to determine if cartels are trying to bring into mexico huge stashes of guns. we also need to use things on this side of the border. that is one of the reasons that long-run rule is important. if we see these long-guns being purchased, it gives the atf real-time leads that they can follow to see if they are legitimate purchases were purchases by people intending to have those guns shipped to mexico. >> coming home, with the real

issues are, not to say they are not important about the border, in our cities, we had a lot of youth violence. i want to commend you for having a national forum on youth violence prevention. can you give us information about what you have done to fight youth violence? >> one of the things i want to say is the five polish juice behind me -- plice chiefolice c behind me have all embraced this issue. it is not about additional law enforcement, we have to come up with ways to dealing with underlying problems. congressman scott has been forward leaning in this regard with legislation he has proposed. we tried to deal with these underlying causes.

we tried to be participants in these preventive activities in addition to the great things we do on the enforcement side. the thing we talk -- you talked about in memphis is an example of the things we are trying to do in the obama administration. >> i would like to comment that the dead a man from philadelphia, i recognize you, i know you from when you testified before this committee on the bill to allow folks who had gun permits to travel from state to state based on federal edict. at the time, i was a sponsor on the bill. because of your testimony and my belief in state's writes, i changed my position. your testimony was affected and it is nice to see you again. i thank you for that. -- was effective and it is nice to see you again.

i thank you for that. >> the gentleman from texas is recognized. >> thank you. thank you, attorney general. we do appreciate the law enforcement being here. we have had multiple of our friends pointing at the present. we do appreciate the job you do. everybody needs friends. i thought about inviting the long -- law enforcement, there is not room in the building. have you read the opinion from the fifth circuit court of appeals, it came up yesterday? what i have not seen that. -- >> i have not seen that. >> there has been a relationship with care and the justice department.

is there any ongoing relationship to c.a.r.e.? >> we reached out to a variety of muslim groups. >> i am talking about this group. >> i do not think we have any particular approach efforts with them. >> odierno there was a partnership between them and the fbi -- do you know there was a partnership between them and the fbi? we do know from this opinion, we know from the fifth circuit opinion, they tried to have their names struck as named co- conspirators. it was unsuccessful. there is a case there to prove. you decided not to pursue those. your department did, as we talked about before.

the decision yesterday, the court said that the palestine committee created not only a holy land foundation, but a number of other interests in the u.s.. whichcreated c.a.r.e., was a co-conspirator. it does create some concerns. there was massive, massive documents -- a massive number of documents furnished to the defendants. a lot of production of documents. i would like to ask, can we get copies of the documents that were provided to the 12 defendants who are now convicted -- to the trial defendant who are now convicted? lee make those documents available? >> i am not sure i know what

document to a talking about. if they are provided in litigation and we can provide them, we would. i do not know if there are documents that we do not have the ability -- >> they have been furnished by your department to the defendants in the case. those defendants have been found guilty of providing support to terrorist. s. those documents are in the possession of terrorists. we have had trouble getting all the documents we have desired and requested. i do not think there should be any problem with privilege since the defendants have them, the terrorists have them. i think it would be a good idea for congress to have them. >> let me take that under advisement. >> i hope we will have as good a standing as the terrorist supporters.

handling massive litigation, 100 of these are letters. i want to ask you, since you had said in your statement that you asked the department inspector general to investigate. in march, you ordered it the right to be set -- said to the law enforcement. in this that is not an e-mail, not a letter, that a transcript -- in this stack is not an e- mail, whatever, a transcript of a speech from you. where are they? he testified may 3. -- you testified may 3. now you say, in february and march you made these orders. when was the first time you began to suspect you may have

taken actions in this case? >> i took actions well before may 3. >> unless you were intentionally misrepresenting the facts, at some point you begin to wonder, gee, i'd think i issued some orders. we have not seen the orders. we know you are capable of mistakes. where are the e-mails? where are they? >> there are a couple of things. i did not draft the february 4 letter. >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> with regards to the question on what i said on may 3, i said a few weeks. i learned about "fast and furious" when this became a

matter of controversy. the middle of the blu-ray, 10 or 12 weeks before i said a few weeks. -- the middle of february, 10 or 12 weeks before i said it the weeks. a few weeks from my perspective was accurate than. i think 10 or 12 weeks would be encompassed in that. >> i ask that he would be allowed to enter the question of whether he ordered the inspector general to investigate that. that was my question. >> i was the person who requested, ordered, the inspector general to begin this investigation. i do not think i did that in any written form. that was printed from me through my chief of staff, the deputy attorney general, there might

be reckoned that exists. i do not think i signed off on -- be a writing that exists. i do not think i sign off on anything. it seemed logical to ask them to expand their inquiry. i do not think there is any writing from me. i do not think there is any that exists. >> we ask for a copy if any such exist. >> the gentleman from california is recognized. >> thank you. there has been a lot of discussion today. the chairman took the opportunity to discuss health care. since we do not get the opportunity to get you in front of us that often, i am going to raise an issue. there is an amendment, the first

amendment. that is the subject of my inquiry. for over a year, the department of justice has been seizing domain names of hundreds of what sets on allegations of criminal copyright and trademark infringement. one was seized a year ago. a popular blood that was dedicated to hip-hop music. -- popular blog that was dedicated to hip-hop music. the seizure -- it raises questions about rights of due process and free speech as they apply to website. after the government seized the name, its owner filed a request for the government to return it. under the law, the government has 90 days to initiate a full proceeding or have to return the

property. in this case, the deadline passed with no action. windy website's lawyer -- when the website's lawyer asked, he was told they filed an extension under seal and with no notice to him. they had no opportunity to respond. when the lawyer asked for proof that the extension existed, the department's lawyers said he would have to trust them. the government claimed to have received two extensions under the same process. they refused to release court orders. as of today, the last extension was filed. the government admitted that it did not have probable cause. the domain name was returned to

the website on a. -- owner. a blog site which is identical to a newspaper or magazine, has the same rights, was shut down for a year by the government with no due process, no hearings, no written orders. if these reports are true, that is an outrageous. my question is, i assume that he believed that the first amendment does not allow the government to go in and shut down the press for a year without any kind of true process -- du process. -- due process. do you think that is consistent with the constitution?

i will give the the article. if the facts are as reported, what will you do to make sure the wrongdoers in your department are no longer in your department? there has to be a sanction for someone to do such a thing. if we did this to a magazine, locked the doors or put a sign that said closed, people would be out raids. since it is a blot -- it is hip- hop, -- blog, it is hip-hop, they have as much right to due process and the first amendment. could you comment on that? >> i am not familiar with the reason why that the main aim was seized with the facts of this case. i will look -- the domain name was seized with the facts of this case. i will look into that.

what the subject matter is of a particular blog is entitled to first amendment rights. i do not know. i can tell you, i will hear about this from my daughters. if nothing else, i will make sure that i get in touch with these folks. my daughters will be on me about this. >> i wonder if you could give a commitment that if the facts are as outlined, you will take appropriate action to make sure that those who violated the law adult with -- law are dealt with and it becomes a simple type of activity. >> we will look at it. anctionable type of activity. >> we will look at it. if someone has acted

inappropriately, i will make sure they are held accountable. >> the gentleman from arizona is recognized. >> thank you. you understand that the reason this issue has gotten so much attention is in the simplicity of the overall project, it appears that the american government, the department of justice, through their department, have orchestrated a program to get american gun dealers to sell guns to straw buyers, to run those guns to mexico, and give them to drug cartels. the understanding that that takes brave risk for innocent

human life. we know that one of our own agents was killed. probably 150 or more mexican citizens were killed. that is a scary scenario by itself. i think the thing that would concern the american people is why this is done. on the one hand, if it is something that was a sincere effort that went wrong, that is one thing. a gentleman mentioned some internal e-mails that were significant. if the american people learned that the motivation was to make a case to deprive them of the second amendment rights or to for the department's ability to regulate gun rights within the united states, that would make them angry. let me read a couple of the e- mails.

i want to be clear on this. on july 14, 2010, there was an update on "fast and furious." "bill, can you see if all of these guns were purchased from the same license dealer and at one time? we are looking at cases to support a demand letter." they were trying to use this tragedy to build a case for these demand letters. "well done, in light of our request, this case could be a strong supporting factor if we determine how many sales occur during this case." the atf was trying to rly on walked guns. the people would be upset if that is true. you testified you had not read

these e-mails. you said you had not read these e-mails. >> that is correct. >> the thing that is difficult for me is he then told him that it was of context. how would you have known if it was out of context if you had not read them? >> because he read part of the e-mail to me. understanding what he read from the e-mail, knowing what happened here -- >> do you reid, i know you have said you did not read letters from a staff, do you read letters from oversight chairmae? >> over the last few months, everything that they have sent i have read. >> let me say, on july 12, 2011, elected they both said to

you, the e-mails i just read to you were attached. >> understand, these things come in. i read these things from the congressman and the senator. >> let me skip -- ascii one more question. ask you one more question. none of the mills have your name on them. this is one of the most significant -- none of the e- mails have your name on them. this is one of the most significant scandals. not one was from you? >> we have produced a substantial amount of stuff. i want to be clear.

with regards to documents that go beyond that, but those materials have not been produced. it is not our intention to produce them. >> the answer would have been no. it is very simple that either, if there are no e-mails the me that had been given -- e-mails from you that have been given, this is either not that big a deal to you, would you do not write e-mails, or you have not given us those e-mails. the of the only three things i have come up with. >> -- those are the only three things i have come up with. but i made an exception with the provision of these materials. i acted in a way that all other attorney general's before me have. there are e-mails that we have

not and will not produce. >> my time is up. i appreciate. that answers the question period without insulting you, that is one of the first cliff -- that answers the question. without consulting you, that is one of the first clear answers. >> the gentleman from illinois. >> thank you. for those of you keeping score at home, one side is using this grew up to justify a policy, the other side is using this to justify not funding atf, not giving the atf a leader, making pricing difficult, making a releasing statistics difficult,

and allowing a relaxed policies -- allowing relaxed policies that will be used long after this hearing today. penalties that would describe in hearings before this congress are nothing more than a moving violation. now that i have the and the score card up-to-date, let me congratulate you. -- now that i have gotten the score card up-to-date, let me congratulate you. we will have two in jail at the same time. two of my left four predecessors went to jail or are going to jail. i want to commend your office for its work. i wish we did not give you so much work to do. towards that end, we managed to

get a bill of this committee dealing with repairing services. i would like your reaction on where we need to go with that. the supreme court struck down the provisions of it. given where we are in chicago, where do we need to go to deal with official corruption? >> i thank you for the compliment. the men and women in chicago deserve all the credit. they have done a wonderful job. they have a great staff. i also appreciate the effort that you and the congressmen have made in trying to help us deal with that supreme court decision. the provision in title 18 is a vital tool as we tried to fight corruption.

a number of cases have been made on the basis of the use of that provision. to the extent that we can work with congress to have that provision formed in a way that can withstand constitutional muster. that will give us another tool in our arsenal against corruption which is a priority for this administration. >> the bill has not passed the full house or senate. to the extent that your agency will participate in making sure we do this right, we would like this one to stand up for some time, we would appreciate your help. >> we would be glad to work with the. >> thank you. i yield back. i recognize the gentleman from texas. >> the way i see the operation, based on all the information i received, is that the united

states government, the justice department, tha atf, were aware of a situation where guns could be bought in the united states, seized weapons, -- serious weapons, bought by straw purc hasers, they wanted to watch the guns go to mexico. here is how it ended up. two dozen weapons, based upon the information we have received -- 2,000 weapons, based upon the information we have received, 600 are accounted for. this operation is the least to me because people died. -- this operation is serious to me because people died. we talk about the two americans, the two agents.

at least 200 mexican nationals died too because of the united states watching these weapons, knowing where they were going, and lose those weapons. the mexican government has not said a whole lot. those mexican nationals who were murdered because of our watching are just as important as the two americans. that is why this is a serious discussion. you of the attorney general. you are a voyeur, a former judge, you of the head guy -- you are a lawyer, a former judge, you are the head that. my understanding is you did not know about the operation. you are the person in charge of

this. believing that you were unaware of operation "fast and furious" requires a willing suspension of disbelief. it is hard for me to believe you were aware of this operation -- unaware of this operation. who is the person in the united states government that made the decision to facilitate the gun's going to mexico? who was that one person? >> we do not know. >> you do not know who was responsible? we do not know who that is? >> we know the case was open in the atf office in phoenix. we know it was given status after that. we do not know who the people

come up person, was -- people, person, was said this is the way in which this operation should be conducted. >> we do not know the person who signed off. everybody has to sign off on something. we do not know who that person is, yet? >> i would be surprised if we see a document that somebody signed off on. >i do not know. >> we do not know who was in charge of making those final -- it is time to send the guns to the drug dealers. it is phenomenal to me. it is a violation of international law to allow gun trafficking to go between two countries. do you agree with that? >> it would depend. what people in one country are

smuggling guns to another country. >> if you look at operation wide receiver, if the government agreed that weapons can go from one country to another, it would not violate international law. what did the mexican government agreed? >> -- >> did the mexican government agreed? >> net in the way it turned out to be >> would you agree it was reckless? -- turned out. >> would you agree it was reckless? >> i would agree with that. it was done inappropriately. it had tragic consequences. it is going to continue to have credit consequences. >> more people are going to die, probably. >> unfortunately, i think that is true. >> under many state laws, that

is manslaughter. it is a crime. it is my belief is the united states government help facilitate homicide, this is a serious matter. there may be people in our government, if they helped facilitate reckless conduct, they should be held criminally responsible are you going as far to make sure that if criminal -- responsible. are you going as far to make sure that if criminal violations were committed you of going to prosecute those people? >> if we find there were criminal violations i will commit that we will take those findings seriously. people will be prosecuted.

when i said reckless, i was talking about the way in which the operation was conducted. i do not want to cast too wide a net you say that on the basis of what we know, there is a basis that people connected "fast and furious" with atf -- would have the state of mind or done things that would bring them under -- >> i know what you a thing. that is what i was saying. -- know what you were saying. that is what i was saying. >> the gentleman from california is recognized. >> before i begin with my questions, i would like to thank you for the anti-crime accomplishment in my district.

the department took down more than 100 members and associates of organized crime groups that were involved in criminal conduct in los angeles, miami, and denver. these were violent and fraud related crimes. the department has gone after an organization went to and that the savings -- organization linked to ecstasy rings. you were also involved and the takedown of cocaine suppliers -- in the tape done of cocaine suppliers. i thank you for all of those at a it has helped our area. -- all of those efforts. it helped our area. we all know there has been a large number of unprecedented

the legislature to passing boat right, i am happy to hear -- and president of the legislature suppressing a vote right, i am happy to hear you are not going to let that happen. can you explain new efforts on voter identification? >> we have a special role to play. the division has been active in this regard. to the extent that changes are made in coverage, we review those proposed changes. where we think something runs afoul of the voting rights act, we note that and do not pass on that. when they are consistent, we

approve them. we have taken a number of places, large objections to proposals. >> what steps are being taken to ensure jurisdictions and the public are aware of what is and not permissible? >> we have tried to spend time on the road, trying to educate people in those areas covered by the voting rights act. we have interacted with state officials, as well, to let them know in ways things can be changed. we have wanted jurisdictions about ways changes might run afoul of the act. and more generally, to talk to the public about the voting rights act.

i'm going to be giving a speech at the lbj library next monday. >> there is an issue about offensive materials about muslims that was used in some fbi training. i know that in a meeting last month you acknowledged this has got. it was when they were conducting counter-terrorism training. they were using materials that included inflammatory statement. at that meeting, you acknowledged that had stopped. i would like to know what the status is of the situation and any investigation that has been opened up? >> the person responsible for using that material is no longer going to be used by the fbi. we have also enhance our efforts

to make sure we review all the materials used in the training of agents, personnel and the department of justice, to make sure that kind of mistake does not happen again. this is something the fbi director as well as i into the leadership in the department are committed to making sure it does not happen again. it was inappropriate. it is a mistake will not allow to happen again. >> thank you, i yield>> thank y. i yield back. >> have you spoken to secretary napolitano about this? >> now. have you spoken with secretary clinton? >> no. have you spoken with president obama about fast and furious? have you spoken with the

president of mexico about fast and furious? >> no. >> have you spoken with the attorney general of mexico about thfast and furious? >> no. >> you have said again that you were a boomlet -- oblivious during this operation we have a dead border agent. we have dead government officials in mexico. we have a helicopter with troops in it, three of which were wounded. we have 50 + members of congress calling for your resignation over this. and you have never spoken to any of these people about this operation? >> the notion that i am somehow oblivious to this matter is totally maligned by these things. >> you took five days to go to the caribbean. you did not have 50 minutes to call secretary clinton or your

counterparts in mexico? >> with regard to secretary and a polish town, -- secretary napolitano, our agencies are connected because we are involved in the prosecution of the killer -- >> if you were involved and engaged in this -- remember that agent terry was killed in mid- december and then we had jaime zepada who was murdered in mexico on january 16. at the very beginning, secretary of homeland secretary napolitano and attorney general eric colder met to discuss this issue.

how did you not talk or discuss or had no discussion about fast and furious? >> the press release you're talking about is not a fast and furious matter. you can understand something about the way washington works. the reality is that, when it comes to matters that are under investigation -- >> but the matter of zepada was that that very likely came from fast and furious. >> "and there was dissent like every other time, even with missed deferreds shooting. there was a state of panic, let's hope that it was not part of that mission. please let that not come back." you and secretary of potano have a discussion and there is no discussion about even the

possibility of fast and furious? >> the meaningful conversations that have been between dhs and doj happen at lower levels, between investigators. >> but what did you and secretary napolitano talk about? you were very quick to issue press releases. >> you are making an assumption that that was a fast and furious case. >> we did not know the time. you did not know at the time. nobody knew at the time is it not reasonable to suggest that it may had been guns from fast and furious involved? >> i have a hard time believing that twice the president has gone before the american people and said that you were not been engaged in this and you said that you have never spoken to the president. how would he know you have not

been involved in this and he can make such a claim if you have never spoken about it? >> the president can get information from the department of justice in a variety of ways. i do not know exactly what the flow of information is within the white house. but he can find out about my statement in matters connected to the justice department without speaking directly to me. >> you have access to the mills of denys firth -- to the e- mails of dennis firth. "some of these weapons found have been directly related to arizona." how is it you never had a discussion with your counterpart in mexico about this? in the "loss angeles times" arbuckle -- "at no time did we know or were made aware that there were arms trafficking permitted.

it goes on in the article -- the paragraph before -- "to this date, u.s. officials have not apologize." what is unacceptable is that you and everyone in your organization know about this investigation. you don't have 50 minutes to pick up the phone. and we still have not talked with these people in order to solve this process. as you say, it will go on for some time. >> i have taken steps to solve this problem. i have ordered an examination of this to determine exactly what happened. i have issued directives that this should never happen again. we have put in place measures so that this kind of thing will not happen again with regard to the reforms that he has put in place. i think it will be extremely effective. and i have made personnel changes. >> you have not fired anybody. no one has been fired. >> the gentleman's time has been

expired. does the gentleman want to respond to the loss of? >> i was trying to say that i have made personal changes with regard to the agencies that have been involved. these are initial determinations that i have made. it is not all that i am possibly going to do. there is an impatience here. in some ways, i am understand it. but the reality is that you have to do this on the basis of evidence, on the basis of findings that are factually grounded. when i am in that position, i will take the appropriate action. but i want to assure you and the american people that people will held accountable for the mistakes made in fast and furious. >> a point of inquiry. >> a point of inquiry. do political appointees of the president and the attorney general sir but the pleasure of the president or the attorney general or do they need to have

to be fired for cause? >> that is not a inquiry, although it may be a legitimate question. the committee will recess until immediately after the series of votes. we expect that to be about 2:30 p.m. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> we will bring you this hearing in its entirety later tonight. you can watch it online anytime on our website at c-span.org where you'll also find scheduling information. >> coming up, president obama comments on the heading of the

consumer protection bureau. the pentagon will hold a news briefing on the disposal of service members remains. and the implementation of the dodd-frank financial regulations law. tomorrow, we will discuss the consumer financial protection bureau with peter schroeder. a new report shows increasing numbers of independent voters. we will talk about the report's findings. and a look at the nation's infrastructure with patricia hu and john horsley. "washington journal" begins live at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> throughout my military career, i've prided myself on

not one thought. maybe we ought to take another look at this. maybe we ought to look at it from this perspective. people's lives could be at stake or we have an obligation and a duty to be good stewards of the researchers that the public interests us with. you sometimes have to be courageous in a meeting when everybody else's head is going up and down. and you're going -- i think i have a different perspective. >> major-general marsha anderson on her career as the highest-ranking female african- american in the united states army. >> president obama spoke to reporters at the white house today about his nominee to head the consumer financial protection bureau. his remarks came shortly after the nomination was blocked when

45 senators voted against the confirmation vote. this is 20 minutes. >> good morning, everybody. a couple of days ago, i said we were in a make-or-break moment when it comes to america's middle-class. we are in a country where everyone stands for themselves or we create a country where everybody does their fair share, everybody has a fair chance, and we ensure that there is fair play out there. to ensure fair play, one of the things i talked about was the importance of making sure we implement financial reform, wall street reform, that was passed last year. the key component of that was to make sure we have a consumer watchdog in place who can police what mortgage brokers and pay- day lenders and other non- financial entities are able to

do when it comes to consumers. this is a big deal. one in five people used these kinds of mechanisms to finance everything from buying a house to cash in their checks. and we passed a law last year that said we need this consumer watchdog in place to make sure that people are not taken advantage of. we have nominated somebody, coudrey, who everybody says is qualified. the majority of the attorney general's, republican and democrat from across the country, have said that this is somebody who can do the job with integrity, who has a tradition of being a bipartisan individual who looks out for the public interest, and is ready to go. and he actually helped set up the consumer finance protection board.

this morning, senate republicans blocked his nomination. refusing to let the senate even go forward with an up or down vote. this makes absolutely no sense. consumers across the country understand the part of the reason we got into the financial mess we did was because regulators were not doing their jobs. people were not paying attention of what was happening in the housing market. people were not the intention to who was being advantage of. there were folks making a lot of money taking advantage of american consumers. this individual's job is to make sure that individual consumers are protected. everybody from seniors to young people who are looking for student loans to members of our armed services who are probably more vulnerable than just about anybody when it comes to unscrupulous financial

practices. there is no reason why mr. courdrey should not be confirmed by the senate and be doing his job right away in order to carry out his mandate and his mission. i just want to send a message to the senate. we are not giving up on this. we will keep going at it. we will not allow politics as usual on capitol hill to stand in the way of american consumers being protected by unscrupulous financial operators. we will keep pushing on this issue. the second thing i want to make clear is that, with respect to the payroll tax, you have all seen our countdown clock behind us. this is about making sure that everybody is doing their fair share and the middle class does not see their taxes go up in 23

days. we heard recently some informations -- some intimations from senate majority leaders and from the speaker of the house that they think we should do a payroll tax, but the question is what price will they extract from the president in order to get it done. i want to make clear that this is not -- they should not extend -- this is not about me. they should not extend the payroll tax cut for me. this is 63 million people who will see their taxes go up in 23 days if congress does not act. this is for 5 million individuals who are out there looking for a job and cannot find a job right now in a tough economy who could end up not being able to pay their bills or keep their house if congress does not act. rather than try to figure out what they can extract

politically from in order to get this thing done, what they need to do is be focused of what is good for the economy, which is good for jobs, and what is good for the american people. i made very clear that i do not expect congress to go home unless the payroll tax cut is extended and unless unemployment insurance is extended. it would be wrong for families and it would be also wrong for the economy as a whole. with that, i will take a couple questions. >> thank you, mr. president. let me ask you about a couple of important issues in the news. republican candidates have taken aim at your approach at foreign policy, particularly is real, and fuji particularly israel -- particularly israel. do you think that politics

trump's science in the case of plenty. >> ask osama bin laden and the 22 out of 30 al qaeda leaders who have been taken out of the field if i engage in appeasement or whoever is left out there. ask them about that. with respect to plan b, i did not get involved in the process. this was a decision made by kathleen sebelius, the secretary of hhs. i will say this, as the father of two daughters. i think it is important for us to make sure we apply some common sense to various rules when it comes to over-the- counter medicine. as i understand it, the reason

kathleen made this decision was she could not be confident that a 10-year-old or an 11-year-old going into a drug store should be able alongside bubblegum or batteries be able to buy a medication that potentially, if not used properly, could have a dangerous effect. i think most parents would feel the same way. the expectation here is that it is important to understand that, for women, for those over 17, this continues to be something that you can go in and purchase from a drug store. it has been deemed safe by the fda. nobody is challenging that. when it comes to 12-year-olds 413-year-olds -- or 13-year-olds

can we be confident that they can use plan be properly? her judgment was that there was not enough evidence that this potentially could be used improperly. >> do you support the decision? >> i do. >> the recess appointment of richard courdrey on the table? do you think that european leaders are stepping up in the way you have encouraged them to to clear up the debt crisis? >> i will not take any options off the table when it comes to getting richard courdrey in. this is a law that was passed by congress that i signed into law that is designed solely to protect american consumers.

i do not think there's any american out there who thinks that the reason we got into this big financial mess that we did was because of too much regulation on wall street or the financial services industry. i take it back. i am sure there are some folks in the financial-services industry to make that argument, but i am not sure that they make it with a straight face. the sticky very specific example. all the families that have lost their home after having paid their mortgage over and over again because they were told that they could afford the sloan they did not understand all the documentation -- they could afford this long, they did not understand all the documentation and did not know they could make up all of these payments. now they are on the street because nobody was making sure that there was fair play and fair dealing in the mortgage

industry. why would we not want to have somebody just to make sure that people are being treated fairly? especially when not only is that family affected but our whole economy? we have the congress for now, republicans in congress right now, who seem to have entirely forgotten how we got into this mess. and part of the reason was because we did not empower our regulators to make sure that they were ensuring fair play. that is what the consumer finance board is supposed to do. we have general petraeus who has been working to make sure that our armed services personnel are not taken advantage of.

they get transferred to a base. the next thing they know, they are taking out loans that they think are a good deal and it turns out that they are paying 100%, 150%, 200% interest rates. why do we not want to have someone in place to make sure that does not happen? it does not make any sense. the bottom line is we will look at all of our options. my expectation is that the republicans who fought this nomination will come to their senses. i know that some will debate and argue that we just want to make some modifications in the law. they are free to introduce a bill and get that passed. but part of what has happened over on capitol hill is not just on this issue but on every issue

-- they will hold up nominations of well qualified judges who do-vote. i have -- to do not get a vote. i have assistant secretaries who do not get in listed just so they can reverse a law that has already been passed. that is what has the american people so frustrated. they do not feel like this thing is on the level. on the european debt crisis, i am obviously very concerned about what is happening in europe. i have expressed those concerns repeatedly to president sarkozy's and chancellor merkel and all the key leaders involved. they now recognize the urgency of doing something serious and

bold. the question is whether they can muster the political will to get it done. europe is wealthy enough that there is no reason why they cannot solve this problem. it is not as if we are talking about some impoverished country that does not have any resources and is being buffeted by the world markets and they need to come hat in hand and get help. this is europe with some of the wealthiest countries on earth, collectively one of the largest markets, if not the largest. if they muster the political will, they have the capacity to settle markets down, make sure that they are acting responsibly, and that governments like italy are able

to finance their debt. i think that chancellor merkel is making some progress with other european leaders in trying to move to a fiscal compact where everybody is playing by the same rules and nobody is acting irresponsibly. i think that is all for the good. but there is a short-term crisis that needs to be resolved. make sure that the markets have confidence and that your stands behind the euro. we will do everything we can to push them in that direction on this because it has a huge impact on what happens here in the united states. they are our largest trading partner. we see some positive signs in our economy. but if we see europe tank, that obviously could have a big impact on our ability to generate the jobs that we need here in united states. i will answer one last question. kristin. >> have you called on congress

not to leave until they settle this issue of the payroll tax cuts? will you postpone your vacation until these matters are resolved? are you intentionally trying to ramp up the pressure on iran? are you considering some other options? >> no options off the table means i am considering all options. [laughter] >> can you tell us exactly what those options might be? >> no. but what i can say with respect to iran, it is important to remember, particularly given the political noise out there, but this administration has systematically imposed the toughest sanctions on iran ever. when we came into office, the world was divided.

iran was unified and moving aggressively. on its own agenda. today, iran is isolated and the world is unified and apply -- in applying the toughest sanctions affecting inside iran. iran understands that they have a choice. they can break that isolation by behaving responsibly and forswearing the development of nuclear weapons, which would still allow them to pursue peaceful nuclear power like every other country that is a member of the non-proliferation treaty, or they can continue to operate in a fashion that isolates them from the entire world.

if they are pursuing nuclear weapons, then i have said very clearly that that is contrary to the national security interest to the united states, contrary to the national security interest of our allies, including israel, and we will work with the world community to prevent that. with respect to my vacation, i would not ask anybody to do something i am not willing to do myself. i know some of you may have been looking forward to a little sun. but the bottom line is that we will stay here as long as it takes to make sure that the american people's taxes do not go on january 1, to make sure that folks who desperately need unemployment insurance get that help. and there's absolutely no excuse

for us not to get it done. keep in mind on the payroll tax cut, this is something that democrats and republicans agreed to last year with little fanfare. it was good for the economy. and independent economists estimate that, for us to not extend them right now, to not extend the payroll tax cuts and not extend the unemployment insurance, it would have a significant impact on our economy. right at the time when we should be growing our economy. when i hear of the speaker or the senate republican leader wanting to bicker, wanting to see what they can extract from's in order to get this done, my response to them is just do the right thing. focus on the american people.

focus on the economy right now. i know the suggestion right now is that somehow this keystone issue will create jobs. that is being determined by the state department right now. and there is a process. but here's what i know occurred however many jobs may be generated by the keystone pipeline, there will be a lot fewer than the jobs created by extending the payroll tax cuts and the unemployment insurance. get it done. if not, maybe we will have a white christmas here in washington. i look forward to spending a lot of time with you guys. [laughter] between now and the new year. thank you, guys. >> pay a dollar now for your

labor, have no health care, have no environmental controls, and no retirement and you deny care about anything than making many. there will be a loud sucking sound going south. >> ross perot talked-about trade issues during the 1992 presidential debate. he made two attempts for the presidency, the first time getting more than 19 million votes, more popular votes than any of a third-party candidate in american history. although he lost, he had a lasting influence on american politics. the contenders live at 8:00 p.m. eastern. to see all the programs from our series, go to c-span.org th /thecontenders. >> why cannot the congress fund

cameras in the supreme court. >> whether the demanded that they be used intrude into the judicial power of the courts to decide on how to conduct its own proceedings. i agree that it is difficult to know where to draw the line. but that is why we need to let the court to drop its own my. >> a senate judiciary subcommittee talked about streaming the court. see articles and editorials from across the country, public opinion polls, and what the justices have said. you will also have a link to c- span's youtube playlist. >> the defense department deputy chief and staff, manpower and

services, recently on the military hanley of the remains of service members. the air force now confirms that body fragments linked to at least 274 fallen military personnel sent to the dover air force base mortuary were cremated, incinerated, and buried with medical waste. this briefing from the pentagon is half an hour. >> good afternoon. it is a pleasure to be with you today. i will make a brief statement and then take questions. >> we are here to address a portion of remains of our fallen heroes. because of the conflict today, and widespread use of improvised explosive devices, the remains of many of our fallen are

fragmented. we strive to return these fallen as intact as possible. if the medical examiner determined the remains are incomplete, the person authorized, usually a family member, must survive it -- signed an election statement. they determine how the -- the services ensure that the remains are handled in accordance with the family's desires. threat the process, we treat the fall and with dignity, honor, and respect. prior to 2008, with the families and elected not to receive notification would take possession of portions of remains, the more tory affected

of the beat is position -- moratory affected normal standards. they were taken to a funeral home. the cremated remains were released to a private contractor to read the escort was present and witnessed this event. -- contractor. the escort was present and witnessed this event. in 2008, it was recommended that the service's employment a retirement at sea option. -- implement a retirement at sea option. our obligation is to treat our fallen with dignity and honor. to provide the best support to their families. that is the mission of the mortuary and those who work there.

we regret any additional brief to the family is that past practices may have caused. we are proud of the mortuary and the employees and their dedication. it is there dedication that resulted in the changes to these processes in 2008. >> you say you regret additional brief, are you reconsidering notifying the families? >> these families made it tough decision not to be notified of portions of their remains. to go back now and notified them would be going against their wishes. we have opened up a hot line, and e-mail account, any family that contacts us, we will address any questions they have. our obligation is to that family and relieve any anxiety, concerns we may have caused.

>> all of these families asked not be notified? >> exactly. everyone of them asked, if portions, in most cases we are talking pieces of soft tissue or bone fragments -- they said, if you add but portions, we do not want to be notified. -- if you identify portions, we do not want to be notified. >> went to the families under the impression -- were not the families under the impression there would be dignified disposal? mike some families not think being bundled with medical waste did not comply with that? >> at the time, before 2008, prior to 2008, we took the unidentified proportioned --

portions to a funeral home. they were cremated. the cremated remains were turned over to a contractor for incineration. if there was any residual matter, it was handled in accordance with the processes of the time. in 2008, our own inspection took a look at the process and said we can do better. here is a better way to provide dignity and honor. we developed the retirement at c process -- sea process. >> are you hearing from some families that they do not feel the disposal of their loved one puzzle remains -- one's remains was what they wished? >> we have had nine calls.

we know of one or two cases where people were concerned. we have only had one call since the most recent revelation. but what did they say? >> they asked the disposition of their loved one. i know we into the question on the spot -- i know we answered their question on the spot. >> have you know the number is limited to 274? -- how confident are you that the number is limited to two 274?red >> we are confident in that number, starting with the tracking system we have for the mortuary dating back to 2003. we are comfortable for that

number. >> do you think any more cases will turn up? >> between those periods of time, no. prior to 2003, we cannot track those cases as well. from 2003 to 2008, we are confident to that number -- with that number. >> prior to 2008, it said it was with a contractor to request a two step process. >> -- contractor. >> a two step process. >> what has been reported is the but cremated and taken to a land fill. what is not accurate. the remains were incinerated -- >> not accurate. the remains were incinerated. any of the remains were disposed of. the cremated remains were incinerated. >> i am not an expert.

you can incinerate cremated remains and they disappear. >> we are into the science of how that reduces the remains. the intent of the incineration is to reduce them as far as possible. >> there was still residual material. that was taken and put into a landfill. >> that was given to a contract. we did not direct them to put it in a landfill. >> you were aware it was being put in a landfill. >> it was a common practice at the time. who knew they were going to a landfill, i cannot speak to. >> you keep talking about the industry practice. everyone we talked to, they

talked about when dealing with human ashes, they would never incinerate them and take them to a landfill. what industry standards are you talking about? but the contract we had with the company was to this -- >> the contract we had with the company was to dispose of the material. they were in the business of have to do -- how they were going to dispose of that material. the pope is the point to focus on, in -- the point to focus on, in 2008, the air force said, there is a better way to do this. we developed the retirement at sea process. through our internal processes

to better honor our fallen, we changed the way we did our processes. >> can you explain any other incidents in which -- any other example where somebody died, a part of their remains were cremated, and then somebody took them to an incinerator and a landfill? we cannot find any other examples. >> how you dispose of medical waste at the time, i believe that was being done with industry standards. the military does position, whether it was medical waste -- these are terms commonly referred to. the family chose not to have

the small portions of the unidentified portions returned to the family. >> there are concerns, they have been vocal on the internet, that their loved ones' remains are deemed medical waste? >> i understand. we do not want to do anything to reopen the wounds of a family that has said, we have buried a loved one. we do not want to do anything to open that wound. can we understand their concerns? you bet we can. we have friends who served in the military. nobody understands that better than we do. >> can you say how many have been retired at sea since 2008? >> we have had 14 instances.

>> state for the record with the remains ended up -- where the remains ended up and did the air force know that is where they ended up? >> when they discovered where the final disposition was they took action immediately. >> they did not know anything until 2008? that was just being turned over to the contractor? >> i cannot say. the leadership of the air force, when they identified this process, they said, we can do better. they took steps to improve the process to better serve the families. >> was the disposition deemed to be disrespectful?

>> it is not the way we would have done it. that is why in 2008 we changed that practice. >> the 274 instances is a greater number that -- then had been discussed before. did the air force know this number and not come out? or is your education part of this process as well? >> we were asked the question the first time, it took us awhile to get the information. it was not that we knew the number, we were trying to make sure we had the eckert number. -- the accurate number. it took a significant amount of

effort. >> if the air force leadership found a about this in 2008, knew it was a wrong thing, why did not the public hear about it in two dozen 8 -- in 2008? >> the families had told the air force that they did not want to be notified if any subsequent portions were identified. in keeping with those which is, we do not go back to the families. they have closure. to open up that wound would be cruel. >> to protect the family? what we did not go back to the families because these families -- >> we did not go back to the families because these families told us -- they have made a tough decision. it is not an easy decision. once they struggle with that and make that tough decision, we want to honor that decision. >> why did the air force not think this was a matter of

public interest? to say, three years later, we knew at the time it was wrong. >> we believed the process was being carried out in accordance with industry standard. >> you said you knew what the industry standards were beforehand. if it were being followed according to industry standards, you knew before 2008, right? >> in 2008 when the new leadership was examining the procedures, they said we can come up with a better process. they developed a better process. >> earlier, you said it is industry stand it. -- standard. if that was the standard, you would have known.

>> i am not sure i'm following. >> i have another question. what did the air force tell the families would happen with the leftover remains? >> date: they would be -- it would have appropriate -- they told them they would have appropriate disposition. >> what is the language when they signed the consent not to be notified about additional remains? what was the language? >> i do not have a copy. we can get you a copy. >> some families opted to receive the remains.

when we are talking about in that case, they would be presented to the families and the families would be responsible for taking care of them? >> we would go back to the family and returned the remains. >> 274 families said no. >> we do not want to be notified at all. >> that has not changed? >> none of those 274 have come forward and asked us that they want to be notified. if they do, we will be forthright. we will tell them everything we know about the dispositions of their loved ones. there were nine calls that started a week ago. >> there are 10 families who have said, i was unaware.

>> no. a few weeks ago we set up a 24- hour hot line for people who had concerns about the mortuary. just recently, with the most recent issue came to light, there has since that time been one additional phone call. it was answered today. we do not have any follow-up that was required. i did not take the call. >> are these people people who signed the form? >> it is open to anybody who calls. the calls had mainly been from family members whose loved one came through dover and they have a question about what happened to their family member. >> they may not be among these 274? what exactly. -- >> exactly.

>> do you know if any of them are? >> the one call we had, i do not know if they were. we had one call today. it was a simple question. they answered it quickly. the previous nine i would assume were not. they were responding to other stories. the hot line number is 1-855- 637-2538. or email dover.pm@pentagon.af.mil since we did not have a system of record prior to 2003, it is difficult to reconstruct those records. they have been turned over to the services. there was not a central repository. the information is not as accurate.

it may not tell us everything we need to know. >> do you know when this process of integrating -- incinerating began? >> we have records from 2003 forward. >> no institutional memory? >> institutional memory would not identify it. >> people at dover, many of them have worked there for a long time. >> we have asked the folks. some say they remember that the process was going on, cannot remember how far back. others say they did not realize how -- that was the process.

>> charlie of cnn, why did the defense department of the congressmen that the exact -- defense department tell the congressman that the exact number of these dispositions could not be determined? that is part of the issue. these various stages of release of information. they do reopen some wounds among the families. >> there have been many questions asked about the issue. some dating back as far as the vietnam war. the farther we get that, the less accuracy we have in the electronic record. the more difficulty we have reconstructing the history before that. >> the congressman was asking about this particular. at dover -- particular period at dover. he was told it would be impossible to get those numbers.

>> when we first looked at it, we thought it would be more difficult. we spent more than 100 hours to get the numbers we are talking about. arable is not to make this a signed project -- our goal is not to make this a sign spudded,-- our goal is not to make this a science project, it is to service the families in the best ways. that is the mission of dover. will you call the congressman and tell him you have made these new discoveries? >> i cannot address what in permission was passed to the congressman. -- what information was passed to the congressman. >> cremated and incinerated remains -- from the private contractor it is in a landfill. somebody knows the final

destination is a landfill. -- somebody at the air force knows that the final destination is a landfill. the leadership does not know. is that what you are trying to convey? >> in 2003, the leadership of the mortuary examined the processes and realized what was happening and said, we can do better. they establish the procedures we have today. the retirment at sea option, it is a much better option. >> the air force does know, somebody does no that is going to a landfill. >> i cannot recreate who knew that things were going to the landfill. i was not assigned there back

then. it is difficult to pinpoint a date of when this thing started. people move. people have come and gone. we have asked the question. >> it seems that though the landfill was unaware at the remains were being except it, -- were being accepted. should not that have been done? should someone have made the landfill aware? >> i cannot speak to the knowledge of what the private contractor knew. i did not have that knowledge. >> i wanted to ask, you were talking about your current process, how are you ensuring that families know how the remains are being handled? do you give them something? in these other instances, people had no idea what happened after they signed off. now when they sign off, how do they know exactly how the remains are handled? >> we explain the process to

them when they are at the mortuary. the mortuary has service representatives from all services who deal with the families of their fallen. they explain the causes and the -- they explain the processes and the options and help the family come to the decision of what options they want to choose. >> in the reporting, the timeline of when this came to light was around when the media ban on dover was lifted. looking back, did that have anything to do with making leadership able to be aware of what was going on? >> everything i have read, there is no connection between those two incidents. >> just to make sure i understand, they are cremated, they are still incinerated. the burial at sea, as that -- does that happen every time?

>> the subsequently a divide portions -- identified portions are cremated, they are placed in urns, recorded it with the navy -- and then we coordinate approhe navy afor an priate time to bury them at sea. 2011, the first time we had the option. in 2008, they approached the board in may the proposal. the board said yes, we agree with that. they procured the earned. -- urns. it was carried out in 2011.

>> this sounds like a burial at sea. >> the burial at sea is a more formal ceremony. it is a solemn ceremony. this is referred to as a retirement at sea. >> it is off of a naval warship. >> no, the navy warship is a specific term. i do not want to address what type of ship it was. it was a normal ship on a normal mission. >> what happened between 2008 and 2011? but it was a two year process. d'ivoire collette -- >> it was a two year process. they were collected and hell. >> there have only been 14. -- and held. but there have only been 14? getting their aunt? i think that speaks. we are talking about small

portions of unidentified remains later only took up 14 sea salt urns. what is most commonly small pieces of small tissue. >> there has only been one. there has been one ship going out for their retirement. tyes. >> what happens remains that are not identified? >> we treat them the same way. >> you said that it was unclear back the process was to dispose of the remains that way. are we talking decades? >> i really don't think so.

you're asking for a very definitive question. it has changed over the years. it has made some of against rights. i cannot tell you how long it went. in 2003, we have very accurate records. 4 urns.e were 13 how long is the process? do you wait until a ship is available? do you keep the urns there until you gather enough to drop in to the ocean?

>> when they have a ship going out, that they're doing the normal duties. they are mingled. >> they are not an individual but several individuals. >> i cannot tell you that. i do not want to misspeak on that. >> there are instances at arlington where you will find names wher ethere has been a plane crash with remains that were not identified. >> that is also one of the methods that happens. >> with these remains, if a family member chooses not to give their consent, are those

remains combing old for a burial? >> a group beryl decision -- burial decision is made when it is difficult to identify tainted remains that makes dna testing not possible. you cannot get the results. with the family's consent, that is usually the practice for a greek burial. >> the family is there. >> what information are you prepared to give them ta? are you prepared to tell them where the remains ended up? >> we are prepared to apologize.

we brought suffering. my father wore the uniform. we know the pain that it causes. if we had done anything to add to the pain, you bet we are willing to apologize. we are telling them everything we know. we put out press releases and a standard other ones. >> do you have any stats? >> i will talk about that. we had nine calls to the hot line since the first information. >> thank you very much.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] darrell jones. real easy. i am the director of manpower for personnel and services. thank you very much. >> coming up, the senate banking committee holds a hearing on the implementation of the dodd/frank law. president obama comment on the senate's rejection of the nominee for the consumer financial bureau. eric holder talks about criticism of operation "republic, lofast and furious." >> tomorrow we will discuss the protection bureau. a new report shows increasing

numbers of independent voters. we will talk about the findings. a look at the nation's infrastructure with the director of bureau transportation. this begins live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> i prided myself on having a free to tell people what i thought. it is one thing to let a senior leader go down the wrong road. you are thinking we have to take another look at this. we have to take you live from this perspective. people's lives are at stake are we have an obligation and a duty to bibe good stewards. sometimes you have to be courageous.

you think you have a different perspective. >> marcia anderson on her role as the highest-ranking african- american. >> no. whicwhich part of the us constitution is important to you? it is open to middle and high school students. make a video documentary a 5-8 minutes long intel as part of the constitution that is important to you. include more than one point of view. >> the financial regulations law was enacted over a year ago. they held this on the loss

implementation. they heard this from officials representing the treasury department and regulatory agencies affected by dodd/frank. this is two hours and 10 minutes. >> i call this hearing to order. the committee continues the oversight of the implementation. since the last implementation hearing in july, there have been significant developments regarding proposals and implementations and additional concerns about the impact of the crisis in europe. we do not have to imagine the crisis to be reminded of why we

passed wall street reform. the current situation has the importance of implementing new roles. it produces risk in market place. there is the passage of the wall street reform bill. the offices have been here on some very important roles including the roles for this. the consumer financial protection bureau has opened its doors and is doing excellent work for mortgage and student loans.

work remains to be done. at some of the most complex ones are the ones still under consideration. it enhances the supervision. the rules are under which they have financial firms and will be designated systemically important. i want timely resolution of these critical of standing roles. we are looking forward to hearing the next steps were there are roles from our panelists today. i recognize that these are difficult. this is the time when tough

decisions have to be made. while the economy is starting to show signs of recovery from a financial crisis, the ongoing turmoil continues to monitor threats and financial stability. this gave them new tools to better deal with financial threats. until the new rules are implemented, our financial system and our economy remains vulnerable to these threats. those before us for their tireless work over the last 18 months and continuing implementation of this law.

you are all dealing with many challenges including constraints. they are basing this to recover. i have no doubt that you and all of your staff will keep up the important work. >> thank you. welcome to the committee. today our financial regulators will give us a progress report on their implementation of this. when it was passed, at the american people war from us as financial regulators would have all the powers that they need to properly regulate financial institutions and to protect investors. unfortunately, a more tools

cannot help 1 regulators failed to do their jobs. this is demonstrated by the commodity futures trading commission. the most basic responsibility is to ensure that customers are protected when a firm fails. 37 days have passed since they filed for bankruptcy and more than $1 billion in customer funds are missing. it is unclear how much longer they must wait while a bewildered cftc searches for their money. a holding them accountable will not be any task. the chairman has been evading questions about his role in regulations. prior to the bankruptcy, it. that he had contacts with them.

when he was called, he decided that he needed to recuse himself from matters dealing with them. the victims' i believe deserve better. i've asked the inspector general to examine the commission's oversight and regulation. have also asked him to determine whether his refusal was a proper. over the last year, it appears

the securities and exchange committee has been operating as a regulator. the access rule was struck down as arbor cherry by the d.c. circuit. the sec failed to properly conduct economic analysis. implement this. the proposal to implement the volcker rule has been marked with misconduct and ambiguity.

it came in the form of a 298 page concept's proposal with over 1300 questions. we all agree that banks should not be allowed to gamble with taxpayer. the ambiguity threatens to make it difficult. further, then not signed don to do this. they may opt to draft their own rules. it was established to insure that regulators coordinate the rulemaking. i hope to hear what the council was unable to secure agreement. more than a year has passed. it is evident that it has not lived up to his promises. it has exacerbated many problems. it is further insulating them from congressional oversight.

we have sacrificed the voice of the people. what we are left with are massive bureaucracies insulated from the people they're supposed to be protecting. this week they're calling for the confirmation. this massive new bureaucracy was designed by the drafters of dodd-frank to be unaccountable to the american people. before we spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a new federal government, we should ensure that it could be held accountable. i and 44 of my republican colleagues have informed the president that we will not consider the nomination of anyone to be the first until the bureau is made accountable. more regulators are there.

we were told that we expect great things. it has shown that little has changed. the failure to improve the accountability may be its greatest shortcoming. thank you. >> thank you. are there any other ones that wish to make a brief statement? >> >> thank you for holding this. i was proud to support this act. i believe it or result in better loans. there is an oversight of risk.

the decisions of those who are large institutions became the collective rest of the entire country. i do not want to relive 2008. it is important to take the time to get the roles right. it is important to know the progress is being made. i look forward to hearing from the witnesses. with respect to the bureau, regardless of what you think, it is time for the senate to understand something about majority rule. a bipartisan majority of the united states senate voted for the dodd-frank reform law. part is the bureaucracy. it needs a director to level the playing field. this nominee has been highly

commended by both the private sector and the consumer sector. without having a director, there are these rules that cannot be written which only perpetuate an uneven playing field where credit unions and banks have to abide by regulations and not bank lenders. that is not fair for consumers. it is time for an upper down vote. >> thank you. i want to echo the words from my colleagues about the importance. thethe only one that knows attorney general personally fairly well.

he has support in the public sector. this -- the only time i mentioned this before this is the only time where one political party is selected a nominee because they do not like the makeup of the agency. they do not agree with the existence of the agency said they block the administrator. that is not make sense. it is unprecedented. it does not serve this country. we know that banks are treated differently. it does not affect the public.

>> the record will be open for the next seven days. i wanted to welcome our witnesses back to the banking committee and will keep the introductions brief. it is chairman of this exchange commission.

mr. john walsh is the comptroller of the currency of the office of the comptroller. i think all of you for being here today. i would like to ask the witnesses to please keep your remarks to five minutes. your written statements will be included. e-mail began your testimony. >> thank you. thank you for the opportunity to appear today. congress passed reform 18 months ago in the aftermath of the financial crisis that cost this country 9 million jobs, trillions of dollars in countless opportunities. today our foremost challenge is helping americans who lost their jobs in recession find new employment. our economy is not creating new

jobs fast enough. the president has laid out a set of ideas that with great nearly 2 million jobs. we hope congress will move forward with them. it only increases our commitment. this is from which our economy is recovering. our international counterparts help achieve an even playing field. since reform is passed last

july, we have made progress while abiding by these principles. financial regulators have publicly proposed or finalized nearly all the major rules relating to the core elements of reform. the ultimate shape of individual roles and reform is becoming clearer by the week. treasury has made substantial progress setting of new institutions to make sure it is stronger and more resilience going forward. they have been meeting regularly for over a year. they are responsible for standing up the consumer financial bureau. he is a longstanding advocate for american consumers to serve as the director. his confirmation has not move

forward. it remains vulnerable to all the same regulatory gaps. the limited authority affects the financial security at tens of millions of american families to rely on non-bank institutions for products and services. we can not super based -- supervise nonbanks in the private student lending markets among others. full and implementation of the

dodd-frank act is needed to protect consumers from the excess risk and fragmented oversight that played such important roles in bringing about the crisis. in implementing reform, our goal is to build a system that is not prone to panic and collapse. one that helps americans save for retirement. back bad we look forward to working with congress as a move forward toward this common goal. thank you. >> thank you. please proceed. there are a lot of witnesses and senators. let me make to the introduction of points. i think you recognize that there

is tension between the various goals. we want to have a process that is very considered. you want to have an open and transparent process. we want to get it done quickly. it does not be possible to get everything done quickly if the fairness and transparency of these deliberations will be adhered to. i think we are making considerable process. i think we're getting the major pieces in place. i try not to miss any opportunity to reemphasized the importance.

and not provide a comprehensive approach. what we tried to do is incorporate the elements of capital regulations set forth in dodd-frank into an integrated approach to capital regulation. i think the shortcomings were basically three. one was focused quality and quantity. this is only an micro credential. it is a macro provincial fashion. third, and capital assessment was too static. we take a snapshot of how they looked at a particular moment rather than the dynamic perspective that suggests where

capital ratios could be in a bad things occur. what we have done is in coordination with our banking colleagues. there are a set of enhancements about the quality of capital. this helps a lot by the amendment to dodd-frank. since they put a floor under the amount of capital, it delays a lot of the concern is that i have. they have standards for the largest institutions. dodd-frank calls for a stress

test. the former provision approach will be implemented next year. at the beginning of this year is starting a gang, we will be running stress tests on the institutions as part of our annual capital review. i think there is a lot going on in dodd-frank. we are making progress. i want to remind everybody of the centrality. >> please be seated. >> the change the regulatory lending.

they have a whistleblower program. they have the authority of a credit rating agency. in the month since it passes, we have made six of the gatt process. of the more than 90 provisions, we have adopted rules for over 3/4 of them. as i have noted, our efforts are informed by substantial efforts. commissioners and staff have participated in working group meetings, conducted seven public tables, dealt with hundreds of interesting groups and investors and have received and considered thousands of public comments.

all of these efforts are helping us to write rules that protect investors and the financial system without imposing undue burdens. my written statement underscores the complexity of our activities. i would like to emphasize a few of our actions. the commission adopted a new role that includes private funds advisers registered with the commission to report systemic risk information. they will dovetail with the enhanced private fund reporting earlier this year and a scale to the skies -- the sized of the fund. the commission has received hundreds of tips through the program from individuals.

some of that will really to rewards. among other things, improving their transparency. they receive comments to inform the upcoming steady. they have a system in which the public or private utility are regulatory organization have them to determine the product. to implement this the proposed rules are required by title 7. along with our fellow regulators, the commission proposed rules to implement the

blogger role and revised increase regulation of markets utilities and financial institutions that engage in settlement activity. in addition, the proposed rules affecting registration deal with asset backed securities. we will deal with rules dealing with provisions related to coal or other safety and payments by those to foreigner u.s. government yoactivities. the plan to do with this holistic play. we expect to seek public comment on an implementation plan for all of the rules under title 7 with the goal of ensuring them are logical that minimizes unnecessary disruption. the sec has made tremendous progress.

it vastly expands the resources. the new responsibilities are so sick of again they cannot be achieved by raising this pair it will severely hamper our ability. regardless of the amount appropriated, our budget will be fully offset and will have no impact on the nation's budget deficit. let me invite you to share with us the progress. >> thank you. i am glad to be here. three years ago the financial system and regulatory system had

8 million jobs that were lost. they played a central role in the crisis. there's also complicated risk. they came together and enacted this. they are working to complete the roles thoughtfully. the congress gave as one role, we will take more, a time as is appropriate. the agency has benefited from significant input including more than 25,000 letters and 1100 meetings. the commission has substantially permitted this and turned the corner.

we have finished 20 rules. they have costs and benefits. as the public to continue to give this advice. large trader reporting, we know what they're doing. registrating of the data repositories themself, a risk- management. there's pester have more transaction. they recklessly manipulate marks. yesterday we completed a role first proposed in october 2010 to enhance customer protection.

until prevent investment of foreign debt as well as lending customer money with and the fund. i have consistently felt that they needed strength and customer protection. i am pleased the acted yesterday. they're also looking to finish roles on segregation. these are the cleared ones. the agency is looking across the board. they have working relationships to see what we can do more to enhance these protections.

they are being reported to regulators. the public can have more and information in real time reporting. as mandated, they are working closely on further definitions of them. i hope we can get these done shortly. important matters are that they have a choice over whether or not to use central clearing. this was the congress mandate. consistent is the margin proposal that nonfinancial of users will not be required to toast more on unclear swaps. they are dedicated to maintaining the ability to users. i will say we do need more resources. we are over 700 staff members. that is about 10% more than we

we rely a lot90's on self-regulatory regulations. the nation can be assured that we can oversee the futures and swaps market. furthermore, this is a stark reminder for us to move forward and at a clean -- and adequately resources. >> please proceed. >> the fdic has made substantial

progress in implementing this. the of orderly liquidation. the fdic has issued final rules to increase the standard coverage limits. in addition, they have adopted a final rule to redefine deposit insurance assessment data from domestic to assets. the new definition reduces the share of assessments paid by community banks compared to the largest institutions, better looking at the industry assets.

the fdic also has the ability to manage the deposit insurance time. regarding orderly of lamentation, a fundamental goal is to promote financial stability by improving the regulators' ability to deal with the system and the challenges by financial institutions. in july, the fdic offered a final rule implementing the liquidation authority. it defines the way creditors will be treated, claims to be

resolved, and the fdic receivership. many aspects are similar to the rules in bankruptcy. shareholders will be exposed to losses under the statutory priority claim. and the assets of $50 billion a more and certain non designated systemically important financial

institutions to some of resolution plans to regulators. the plans will detail the manner in which each company will be resolved under the bankruptcy code and will include information on credit exposures and guarantees. the second rope would require complementary deposits with that rigid with assets of $50 billion or more. with the event ave, they require the fdic to courtney to the maximum extent possible with appropriate foreign regulatory authorities. the fdic and u.s. regulators are working to promote this. we have been engaging on a bilateral basis.

they have a proposed rule making temperament new capital requirements. there is a board meeting tomorrow. given the recent financial crisis, their concerns raised about the impact of the dodd- frank act. the fdic is relating to community banks. they have a conference are there next year. it will focus on the future of community banks. we will also do ground table

once. they have oral statements and be glad to respond. >> as well as our efforts to strengthen risk-based capital leverage and liquidity requirements. i would like to highlight a few

of the items as detailed in my written statement. the integration has been successfully completed. our efforts are focused on coordinating and consolidating the various rules and policies that apply to federal savings loans. we aim to eliminate duplications and reduce unnecessary regulatory burden. our dealings have focused on consumer complaints and policy. they process consumer complaints on the behalf.

with respect to rulemaking, they are required to consult with the regulators prior to proposing a rule and during the rulemaking process. we are working on a consultation and agreement that will provide the regulators reasonable time treat you and comments on the room making. another area of focus is the coordination of supervisory activity. is regarding respective schedules to conduct their respective exams simultaneously. some of these requirements in not mesh well without think examination activities are actually conducted. they are working to develop one

to develop a practical approach to ordination that involves unnecessary burden. they issued the 2011 report to congress and has held additional meetings and conference calls to discuss current markets. it could have potential systemic risk implications for the u.s. financial sector. facilitating confidential exchanges of information regarding rest as one of the principal benefits. a clear lesson was the need to bolster the quality of capital held by financial institutions. harmonizing dodd-frank capital requirements with standard is one of the principal challenges they face.

we're working with the agencies to ensure they are carried out. staff are's evaluating the thousands of comments received on these three proposed rulemaking and are not actively engaged. more recently, the banking agencies jointly published the volcker rule. in some recent ones, and they will continue to move forward to complete the many projects under way. i look forward to keeping the committee apprised of our progress. >> thank you. i would like to thank all of our

witnesses for their testimony. houle with delaying the implementation lead the u.s. economy more susceptible to fall of from the european debt crisis? as a lease to the failure, are they prepared to resolve it? >> the core elements were designed for a more resilient system. europe underscores the importance of the statute to

make sure that appropriate capital cushions and other standards are put in place to make sure that derivatives are brought within the regulatory fold to make sure that we continue to make progress on our liquidation authority. so that we can bulk of the best protected from whatever europe provides as. it is critical that we move forward. >> dodd-frank was structured to respond to two kinds of stresses in u.s. firms. some of the specific internally generated problems that characterize the crisis and

secondly, a generalize capacity to absorb a loss. it is rather than the internally generated problems. capital is the most important consideration. since 2009, are 19 largest institutions have erased approximately three and a billion dollars in capital. and not think any of us would discount the ability for difficult is in the united states.

the capital positions have made a lot of progress. >> if you are confronted it a failure of a systemically failing institution, we believe we have the authority and the capability to carry out the fdic's response ability. we have been working for the past year. we have been consulting closely

with their fellow agency. if necessary, we think we are prepared today to carry our responsibilities under the law. this could be people from all across bit. they are deeply concerned about accounts and missing funds. what steps are being taken to ensure the integrity.

>> i am not participating in the matters of this specific company. it may be appropriate for someone else who is here to follow up and take the specifics of the company. more generally with regard to the importance of protecting customer bonds, we're taking a number of steps. yesterday we finalize a girl on funds that we felt we needed to do since we propose that.

>> is there anything you like to add? >> thank you. we currently have dozens of staff members working on global issues. we have auditors and attorneys looking into the matter. we are working closely with the staff. mayor working to make sure where tracing all of the transactions at one in and out. the number of different accounts and transactions that did occur has made this very complex. has made this very complex.